Rand Paul being detained by TSA.

[Toma]

Apparently, he refused the pat down after the machine found an "anomaly"

http://www.mikechurch.com/The-Founde...e-airport.html

[Zephyr]

Ironically he's going to a pro-life rally. So his freedoms is restricted at the airport while trying to rally about restricting freedoms..hrm.

But regardless it's good he's bringing attention to the TSA.

[BigMass]

Originally posted by Zephyr
Ironically he's going to a pro-life rally. So his freedoms is restricted at the airport while trying to rally about restricting freedoms..hrm.

But regardless it's good he's bringing attention to the TSA.

Way to hijack a thread and turn it into a debate about abortion I’m not even anti abortion but your lack of understanding of the issue from a purely atheistic / scientific level is obvious

[Toma]

Originally posted by BigMass


Way to hijack a thread and turn it into a debate about abortion I’m not even anti abortion but your lack of understanding of the issue from a purely atheistic / scientific level is obvious

Take it easy on Zephyr, he is one of the "good" Americans.

[Zephyr]

Originally posted by BigMass


Way to hijack a thread and turn it into a debate about abortion I’m not even anti abortion but your lack of understanding of the issue from a purely atheistic / scientific level is obvious

Someone is angry. I'm simply pointing out that Rand Paul is complaining about TSA restricting freedoms, while he's going to a pro-life rally.

For example: Celebrity chief Paula Deen saying she has diabetes, while the same time signing a multi-million dollar deal to be the spokes person for a new diabetic drug.

No debate here. But I do like the fact that Rand Paul is putting the TSA back in the spotlight.

[BigMass]

Originally posted by Zephyr


Someone is angry. I'm simply pointing out that Rand Paul is complaining about TSA restricting freedoms, while he's going to a pro-life rally.

For example: Celebrity chief Paula Deen saying she has diabetes, while the same time signing a multi-million dollar deal to be the spokes person for a new diabetic drug.

No debate here. But I do like the fact that Rand Paul is putting the TSA back in the spotlight.

I’m just pointing out that there is no irony because obviously Rand Paul doesn’t see it your way. The more you know about an issue from a purely scientific standpoint the more you realize things aren’t black or white. Rand is a medical doctor and I think he’s more than qualified to make a proper personal decision. However he realizes the moral and philosophical landscape and feels that that most practical solution is to let states make their own decisions regarding the issue. This at least gives people options. No matter what your stance on an issue is, allowing the federal government dictatorial powers gives people no option and while on a single issue it might fall in line with your personal philosophy, another time the Feds might make a decision that goes against what you believe and at that point you’re fucked. The less power the federal government has over your life the more freedom you have. So his political position on the matter is actually the most “free” option you can have no matter what side of the issue you are on

[Zephyr]

Originally posted by BigMass


I’m just pointing out that there is no irony because obviously Rand Paul doesn’t see it your way. The more you know about an issue from a purely scientific standpoint the more you realize things aren’t black or white. Rand is a medical doctor and I think he’s more than qualified to make a proper personal decision. However he realizes the moral and philosophical landscape and feels that that most practical solution is to let states make their own decisions regarding the issue. This at least gives people options. No matter what your stance on an issue is, allowing the federal government dictatorial powers gives people no option and while on a single issue it might fall in line with your personal philosophy, another time the Feds might make a decision that goes against what you believe and at that point you’re fucked. The less power the federal government has over your life the more freedom you have. So his political position on the matter is actually the most “free” option you can have no matter what side of the issue you are on

And Rand Paul is a pro life supporter, thus he believes abortions should not be allowed. If something isn't allowed, then it's a restriction of freedom (regardless of how controversial it is). Hence my comment, if he is complaining about restriction by the TSA, but ironically he's going to a speech about restricting a woman's right.

I'm not for or against abortion. But when you want to ban something, it is restriction of freedom.

And FYI
Rand Paul is an eye doctor
Ron Paul is a OBY/GYN

Maybe you're getting those two confused.

[BigMass]

Originally posted by Zephyr




And Rand Paul is a pro life supporter, thus he believes abortions should not be allowed.

That’s his personal stance but not his political stance and it has nothing to do with freedom. I already explained he doesn’t see it YOUR way so you imposing your beliefs into his stance is fallacious. Politically he supports the morning after pill and is in favor of letting states decide on the issue. He believes the Federal government should not have authority over abortion, drugs or marriage. So no matter what your stance is on the war on drugs or gay marriage the most “free” way of resolving the issue is getting government out of it.

[Zephyr]

Originally posted by BigMass


That’s his personal stance but not his political stance and it has nothing to do with freedom. I already explained he doesn’t see it YOUR way so you imposing your beliefs into his stance is fallacious. Politically he supports the morning after pill and is in favor of letting states decide on the issue. He believes the Federal government should not have authority over abortion, drugs or marriage. So no matter what your stance is on the war on drugs or gay marriage the most “free” way of resolving the issue is getting government out of it.

Again, I have yet to say my beliefs about it, nor do I have a stance on it.

I'm simply pointing out that he is against abortions (that's a fact, and he's stated that.) If you ban abortions, it restricts freedom, banning anything restricts freedom. Regardless of its good or not, banning something is restricting some type of freedom. Yet he's complaining about freedoms that the TSA restricts.

It's like having a tobacco company telling you alcohol is bad.

[BigMass]

Originally posted by Zephyr




Again, I have yet to say my beliefs about it, nor do I have a stance on it.

I'm simply pointing out that he is against abortions (that's a fact, and he's stated that.) If you ban abortions, it restricts freedom, banning anything restricts freedom. Regardless of its good or not, banning something is restricting some type of freedom. Yet he's complaining about freedoms that the TSA restricts.

It's like having a tobacco company telling you alcohol is bad.

it's like talking to a brick wall

[Zephyr]

Originally posted by BigMass


it's like talking to a brick wall

Yep, at least we can agree that talking to you is like talking to a brick wall.

[whiskas]

The only productive thing that I got out of this thread is that I need to add BigMass to my ignore list.

[5.0]

Originally posted by BigMass


and is in favor of letting states decide on the issue. .

Ie. Passing the decision to a state government rather then the federal?? Not much of a difference...

[clem24]

Originally posted by whiskas
The only productive thing that I got out of this thread is that I need to add BigMass to my ignore list.

QFT. Oh and that Zephyr is a new girl.

[Mibz]

They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the
Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of
their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for
any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other
Place.

Why should this apply if he's going to a non-Government meeting?

[Kg810]

Originally posted by BigMass


Way to hijack a thread...

Way to hijack a thread

[Antonito]

Originally posted by BigMass
That’s his personal stance but not his political stance and it has nothing to do with freedom. I already explained he doesn’t see it YOUR way so you imposing your beliefs into his stance is fallacious.

How he sees it is completely besides the point. He has the right to not have an abortion. What other people do is none of his concern, or at least shouldn't be if he wasn't a wanna-be fascist.


Also this:

Originally posted by BigMass

So no matter what your stance is on the war on drugs or gay marriage the most “free” way of resolving the issue is getting government out of it.

is completely contradicted by this:

Originally posted by BigMass
Politically he supports the morning after pill and is in favor of letting states decide on the issue.

I used to be very confused about why so many "libertarians" held States rights to be so important. Then I noticed that most, like Rand Paul, mostly harped about States rights with regards to doing unconstitutional things. The Federal government/Supreme Court has a decent record of overturning racist/misogynist/otherwise unconstitutional laws, so the only way to push through backwards legislation is to get the Federal government out of it and move to a State where the government can be persuaded to pass all sorts of human rights violations as laws.

[CanmoreOrLess]

Always a little Python for the moment:

[spikerS]

Originally posted by whiskas
The only productive thing that I got out of this thread is that I need to add BigMass to my ignore list.

+1

[BigMass]

Originally posted by Antonito


How he sees it is completely besides the point. He has the right to not have an abortion. What other people do is none of his concern, or at least shouldn't be if he wasn't a wanna-be fascist.

You're comparing abortion with something like smoking pot or gay marriage. You’re bundling together social issues into one basket when they’re all separate issues with separate arguments on both sides. Some are down to nothing more than choice. That’s why Ron Paul wants to end the war on drugs on a Federal level. Abortion is a completely different type issue. Depends when you believe a human becomes human. For Rand, it’s not a matter of choice, it’s a matter of protecting the rights of another human. So his position is valid and there is no irony from his point of view. Too call him fascist is a completely ridiculous ad homonym.

I used to be very confused about why so many "libertarians" held States rights to be so important. Then I noticed that most, like Rand Paul, mostly harped about States rights with regards to doing unconstitutional things. The Federal government/Supreme Court has a decent record of overturning racist/misogynist/otherwise unconstitutional laws, so the only way to push through backwards legislation is to get the Federal government out of it and move to a State where the government can be persuaded to pass all sorts of human rights violations as laws.

It’s boggling you could even say this. The Federal government is responsibly for some of the most unconstitutional, police state, big brother, anti-personal freedom legislation in the history of humanity. The difference is that state laws are easier to change with the changing morals of society and are not monolithic in power. The higher you kick up the power structure the less choice and recourse you have. The way you think you’d be all for a central world government because of the great benefits of justice and freedom it would bring about