Ron Paul Debates TSA Screenings - CNN 11/19/10

[Bruno]

Wish Ron was feeding some great talking points such as the above. Also what I would've used.

-TSA fails to catch nearly half of their own internal tests.
-Freedom across airlines let people decide the actual demand/cost of safety
-The precedent this sets for other areas; As if Terrorists can only attack a plane.(buses? sports games? conventions? home inspections? schools?)
-The fact that Napolitanos statements are all false. Pictures have been saved, screenings are being done in view of others. TSA repeatedly can't be trusted.

+ rep

 

[ivflight]

It is not his fault you do not understand how they are related.

Since you decided to make fun of me rather than respond to my ideas, I'll assume you think I'm right.

 

[TheDriver]

God I wish Ron would hire someone to help him with some good public speaking techniques.

It hurts our cause tremendously when he isn't able to gather his thoughts and communicate them in a coherent and clear manner. I mean I understand what he is saying but I have high doubts that the average Joe with a brainwashed mind can grasp what he is getting at..

Huh so frustrating.

QFT....


He really went off base for no reason. He had a perfect chance to slam TSA and make a case for getting the government our of airport security, but started talking about "we're making enemies over there." You just can't jump around with 15 seconds of talking time.....

The interview started off well, but went nuts when he started asking the Bush clone questions.....

I know Ron wants to try and point out our presence in the Middle East causes a lot of hatred, but he needs to figure out a quick, coherent way to do it, especially if he is going to try and do it in a 15 second soundbite on CNN.


An example (that Ron Paul would never use):
"Maybe we need to evaluate why these foreign extremists from the Middle East are attacking us, while we need to protect our security here at home, I've heard foreign policy experts suggest our foreign armies in the Middle East are the justification the extremists use to recruit their followers, and that concerns me."

 

[silentshout]

Great interview. I think he did fine. What i am upset about is the fact that no one else is speaking out about this! Ron is thte only one with the principles to stand up to this? What about kucinich and people like him? Oh, that's right, he kowtows to Obama now that he is in power. Very sad.

I didn't think his speaking style was that bad. I have seen worse.

 

[Brett85]

QFT....


He really went off base for no reason. He had a perfect chance to slam TSA and make a case for getting the government our of airport security, but started talking about "we're making enemies over there." You just can't jump around with 15 seconds of talking time.....

The interview started off well, but went nuts when he started asking the Bush clone questions.....

I know Ron wants to try and point out our presence in the Middle East causes a lot of hatred, but he needs to figure out a quick, coherent way to do it, especially if he is going to try and do it in a 15 second soundbite on CNN.


An example (that Ron Paul would never use):
"Maybe we need to evaluate why these foreign extremists from the Middle East are attacking us, while we need to protect our security here at home, I've heard foreign policy experts suggest our foreign armies in the Middle East are the justification the extremists use to recruit their followers, and that concerns me."

I agree completely. Also, constantly talking about "blowback" will never convince conservatives to support a non interventionalist foreign policy. A better way to frame this issue is by talking about the size of government. You have to point out that since conservatives support very little intervention in the economy, the same principle should apply to foreign policy as well. You have to point out that if you want a small government and less spending here at home, then you should want a small government and less spending overseas as well.

 

[Theocrat]

Private Better Than Government

Except they wouldn't, because they wouldn't be immune to harassment laws AND they'd have to actually turn a profit. Molesting people who are supposedly hiring you for a service only works if you're the government, and those machines are far from cost efficient. Also, you could just pick another airline.

Those are excellent points.

 

[low preference guy]

It was a good interview, but I sometimes wonder if Congressman Paul has considered what airport security would be like if it were left to private airlines, and they implemented the same techniques as TSA to screen passengers before flight (i.e., naked scanners, intrusive pat downs, even cavity searches). I still would not want my family nor myself to fly, even if it meant a private entity used the same screening techniques as the TSA currently does.

if they're allowed to design their own security measures, there would be variation among different airports, so the porn/groping thing will not last long. people won't travel in that airport.

everyone knows the current system is just a show and it's not effective.

 

[ivflight]

The biggest (and probably best) argument you'll run into with privatization is that flight is a security issue for more than just those people on the plane (ie 9/11). The market can still handle this situation but only if our courts hold the airline responsible for any and all property damage they cause, like crashing into a building. I imagine that the market would take this beyond just each airline's security measures, as most airlines would probably have to buy huge insurance policies (what was the monetary damage from 9/11?). The insurance companies would then set the minimum guidelines for security.

If the government forced the airlines to have insurance (or enough assets to be self-insured), then I think this is a regulation we could live with.

What we cannot have is privatization without responsibility. This is moral hazard.