Rand Paul’s Pat-Down Standoff With TSA in Nashville Ends

ABC News ^ | Jan 23, 2012 10:33am | Sunlen Miller

[Borax Queen]

You’re absolutely right, Chickensoup. A nation of quivering cowards and submitters to any renta-cop with a bubble-gum machine badge, all because they’re too afraid to leave their house, has lead to this.

Those types will willingly walk through the cancer scans with their arms raised in the position of surrender. And would board the train to a Siberian death camp because they believed it was “for their own good.”

It’s just too bad they take the rest of us down with them.

[aldabra]

cc: takenoprisoner;darrellmaurina

AlanGreenSpam,
Perhaps ,before going off on an anti ‘NO AIRPORT SCREENING’ rant you re-read and think about the following posts:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2836794/posts?page=82#82
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2836794/posts?page=83#83
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2836794/posts?page=87#87
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2836794/posts?page=89#89

[transducer]

What about immunity for normal arrest when on Senate business.

Immunity from arrest applies to travel to and from meetings of Congress, which is not the situation here.

The TSA was out of line, but not for that reason.

[Timber Rattler]

If you do answer NO AIRPORT SCREENING at all, then you fit squarely in the nutjob category in my book.

Then count me in the nutjob category please.

And BTW, I'll take Ben Franklin over the liberal "progressive " Oliver Wendell Holmes any day---the very same guy who supported forced sterilization in Carrie Buck vs. Virginia.

[Borax Queen]

We the citizens are interrogated at various ground checkpoints, our vehicles sniffed within 100 miles of the border, inappropriately touched at the airports and trains, humiliated, made to strip (at minimum, shoes, belts, jewelry) — all the brainwash the sheep into a prison camp mentality.

Meanwhile, just 60 miles, anyone can walk over into the U.S. with basically anything they want.

As long as we can go back to the “old days” of being able to carry a Swiss Army Knife and actually having a few real men on board, instead of cowering sissies who want the gubt to protect them, I too will choose the flight without the radiation scans and molestations.

[Texas Fossil]

Section 6

1: The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States.6 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.

[Texas Fossil]

And it is apparent to me the real reason Rand Paul was singled out was not because the electronic scan found something questionable.

He was on his way to a Pro Life meeting to make a speech. Totally Unacceptable behavior in ObozoWorld.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

I’m just trying to figure out just what it is that the anti-TSA people desperately want to accomplish

Getting rid of an opressive, malicious, federal union thug entity that is supressing air travel and violating the rights and freedoms of US citizens.

I’d like to see the anti-TSA people offer a better alternative.

Ok, let's have the airports provide a private security service.

One of the replies to my post here suggested doing racial/cultural profiling (of Muzzigers) and I agree that would be much more effective than screening little old ladies and children.

They need to do conduct criminal profiling, more specifically, terrorist profiling and leave normal American citizens the hell alone.

...if you guys are suggesting NO AIRPORT SCREENING at all, that’s just too risky in today’s world.

That's ridiculous, they need to ID the would be murderers. Why should moslems even be allowed on planes? They are the enemy of a free society.

[OneWingedShark]

Sure, it’s easy for you to post the great quotation by Ben Franklin and think you’ve won the debate, but how does that apply to cases like not being able to shout “FIRE” in a crowded theater. That’s “against the law” but you need to ask yourself the question: Is being able to shout “FIRE” in a crowded theater and “essential liberty?”

Actually it is. You see, the whole "you can't shout fire in a crowded theater" argument is just justification for abridging your right to speech under the guise of 'safety.' In fact it carves out a whole class of exceptions which has been expanded to include things like 'hate-speech.'

The correct response to the problem of "shout fire in a crowded theater" is to allow the shouter to be liable for damages incurred from his speech in the case that there wasn't any fire (or reasonable cause to believe there was one).

The reason that the above solution is repugnant to the Statist is because it does not hand over more power to the state.

[darrellmaurina]

Monday, January 23, 2012 10:01:04 PM · 64 of 109 by Texas Fossil to darrellmaurina: “Thanks”

You’re quite welcome...