Rand Paul Is Clueless

[Flummoxed Lummox]

Flashback:

What's your point? If it's to show that two elected officials were wrong by thinking they could bypass security, then I guess you proved your point. Otherwise, I have no idea what you're trying to say.

McKinney was wrong (and frankly should have been arrested for striking the policeman) and so was Rand Paul.

You guys seem to forget that the job of TSA is make sure passengers can fly without the threat of loons, political and religious fanatics, and terrorists killing us or threatening our safety. They are not perfect (as JR points out), but we are a lot safer than if there were no security measures.

I agree that TSA sometimes goes overboard. The invasive search of grandma and other extreme examples I find troubling too. But when someone sets off an alarm, regardless of the reason, and refuses to be patted down, TSA has every right to not let that person board a plane.

Can you imagine the outrage if TSA were to let a person board a plane who had set off an alarm and then refused to be patted down who later hijacked the plane and killed passengers? You guys would be screaming that TSA was negligent and that more should have been done to prevent this. Well, TSA did just that with Paul. They did their job and had every right to ask Paul to be patted down. He is a jackass looking for attention.

[Dementia_Madness]

Actually...McKinney was wrong and Paul was not, ANYONE can refuse the pat-downs and not fly as he did...he was within his rights to reject the procedure, and as a result the TSA has a right to not let them fly, had he ran around the screeners tried to get on anyway..or struck them that would be different, instead, he stood by his right to refuse the search, and as a result missed his flight and his appointed appearance.

My point is that there is a standard we all must abide by...some feel they don't have to because they are privileged and have no problem with others having to submit...others feel we all should not be subject to such treatment...one of those describes McKinney ( a Democrat who was re-elected to six terms in office despite being as loony as a moon-bat), and the other describes Paul. YES She was wrong, because she sought to subvert the law and ignore it...Paul on the other hand submitted to the law, rejected the pat-down and suffered for his choice, there is a difference.

I agree that TSA sometimes goes overboard. The invasive search of grandma and other extreme examples I find troubling too. But when someone sets off an alarm, regardless of the reason, and refuses to be patted down, TSA has every right to not let that person board a plane.

I agree, imagine had someone kidnapped a family member and strapped a bomb to a politician and forced them to comply or their family would die.... not saying that the individual would actually commit murder to save his own family, but you never know...anything is possible even and especially with political leaders and celebrities, who just might get a "Pass" without screening. TSA agents have a hard job, they do go overboard sometimes, many times, but in the end IF one of those planes explodes who is the first fingers of blame going to point at?

We have to walk a fine line between security and liberty....in the end there has to be give and take on both sides...liberty without security cannot last in a world like it is today...but to give up liberty for fear of the unknown is also a tragedy, this is how I feel the enemy has won, terrorism's objective is to force a change in the lives of your enemies through threats violence and intimidation, the fact that we have to be subject to such violations of private individual privacy today is indeed a victory for the bad guys.... truthfully I can see little alternative though, unless we allowed private individuals to be the first line of defense, but how do we distinguish those from the bad-guys, we are stuck in a no-win situation either way.

[NCVol]

Actually...McKinney was wrong and Paul was not, ANYONE can refuse the pat-downs and not fly as he did...he was within his rights to reject the procedure, and as a result the TSA has a right to not let them fly, had he ran around the screeners tried to get on anyway..or struck them that would be different, instead, he stood by his right to refuse the search, and as a result missed his flight and his appointed appearance.

I'm not defending McKinney, but as a member of Congress she wasn't required to go through the scanner.  She was offended they didn't recognize her, and acted like a privileged child, instead of calmly showing them her credentials and going on her way. 

[Dementia_Madness]

I'm not defending McKinney, but as a member of Congress she wasn't required to go through the scanner.

This is not actually true, members of congress were given a identification pin which allowed them to bypass the scanners....she was not wearing hers, had she had her pin on she would have been allowed through with no problems...not only that but her reaction after the event is also telling...

http://www.oup.com/us/companion.websites/9780195182439/top_ten/mckinney/?view=usa

Rather than immediately apologize for hitting a Capitol Police security officer, McKinney launched a caustic campaign to discredit the officer and characterize herself as the victim of police brutality. Her claims were extreme, but of course that's the point. The more aggressive the bluff, the more likely it is to work.

[NCVol]

Gosh, debating with you is maddening.  

I say, "as a member of Congress she wasn't required to go through the scanner[/u]."  

You say, NOT TRUE!!!! "Members of Congress were given a pin which allowed them to bypass the scanners...."  

So, let's clear this up.  It's not true that members of Congress aren't required to go through the scanner.  They CAN however, bypass the scanner!!!  Totally different!!!  

I say, "and acted like a privileged child, instead of calmly showing them her credentials and going on her way."  

You say, "she was not wearing hers, had she had her pin on she would have been allowed through with no problems...not only that but her reaction after the event is also telling..."  

So, instead of calmly showing them her credentials, she should have had on her credentials.  Which proves I'm wrong, also too.  And I'm wrong that she acted like a spoiled child, but her reaction after the event is "telling" in some other way, such as ...... her acting like a spoiled child?  

 
 

[Dementia_Madness]

Gosh, debating with you is maddening.  

Why because you HAVE to debate me...the fact is what you guys want is your opinions validated and accepted as fact to the very jot and tittle apparently, don't dare disagree with you, heaven forbid. The problem is you don't think people should disagree with you, on anything I guess, It amuses me that in the end I am always disagreeing with YOU...instead of you disagreeing with me.  the fact is SHE HAD TO HAVE A PIN TO GET THROUGH, which she did not, and then she IGNORED the officer and tried to FORCE her way though...PAUL did none of these, he may disagree with the procedure, but he submitted to it ti the extent he needed to, and beyond that he then practiced his right to reject the invasive search (as many people do, you and I even have this right) and thus not FLY and miss his appointed destination.

So, let's clear this up.  It's not true that members of Congress aren't required to go through the scanner.  They CAN however, bypass the scanner!!!  Totally different!!!  

Yes it is different, YOU claimed they are not required to go through the scanners at all...which was the limit of your statement, in the end they MUST wear a pin that identifies them as being admitted beyond the checkpoint, a very important fact that actually tells us why she was trying to bypass security and then struck the officer and then tried to smear the officer and destroy his/her career.

I say, "and acted like a privileged child, instead of calmly showing them her credentials and going on her way."  

You say, "she was not wearing hers, had she had her pin on she would have been allowed through with no problems...not only that but her reaction after the event is also telling..."  

Then we agree on that point...duh, just because I respond doesn't mean that EVERY word in that response is in fact meant to disagree with every word you say, that apparently is what you take it for, and really tells more about what you read into it rather than what I actually say (You will notice I quoted a specific comment and then disagreed with THAT specific comment and refuted).

So, instead of calmly showing them her credentials, she should have had on her credentials.  Which proves I'm wrong, also too.  And I'm wrong that she acted like a spoiled child, but her reaction after the event is "telling" in some other way, such as ...... her acting like a spoiled child?  

See my last comment....duh. You and FL really lack the gift of discernment don't you?