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

I just saw a Des Moines local news broadcast where they interviewed three people who didn't mind the pat-downs, and of course didn't talk with anyone who does mind them. They also said travelers through Des Moines Airport don't need to worry about the scanners, because we don't have them.

But...but...but...how can we feel safe? :eek: Won't the terrorists just seek out airports like ours that don't have the scanners, and just take their chance at the lottery that they won't get pulled aside for a pat-down? :rolleyes:

pacelli said:
Thanks for the post.

WTF is Ron doing in Arizona?
Click to expand...

He was doing what he does best, speaking with the young people at a university. (ASU)

http://www.kpho.com/news/25852301/detail.html
 
Last edited:
I'll admit I'm biased, but Dr. Paul didn't do a poor job here. In fact, I might argue he was better than usual.
 
Personally, I love it when he gets pissed. He doesn't allow the interviewer to shut him down now. I think he made his point.
 
hazek said:
Finally someone who isn't delusional..


Here, this is how I would have liked Ron to make his points:

When asked the question: What sir happens if we take away these screenings and we have another 9/11?

He should have answered: I have to make 3 points to answer your question:
1. we are a democratic constitutional republic and not a democracy which means we agreed upon following the rule of law of the land which is the constitution which doesn't give us the authority to keep you safe but to respect and protect your inalienable rights so when you buy a ticket at the airport the government should protect your rights not force you to give them up.
2. Look at this extraordinary relatively cheap device (show a cell phone). How did it come about? It came from the free market and not the government, so the free market through services of private companies will always find a better solution for the needs people have such as security on a flight.
and 3. If we really want to increase the safety of our flights, we should look to our foreign policy and understand that it has a blow back when we invade and bomb sovereign nations and keep bases all around the world, so we should stop doing that and bring our troops home.
Click to expand...

I thought you gave up trying to criticize RP for doing what he does better than anyone, and which has resulted in creating one of the biggest freedom movements in history IN A VERY SHORT TIME. I wish you WOULD give it up, since such little things as THIS WHOLE FORUM flatly disproves comments like “it hurts our cause tremendously when he isn't able to gather his thoughts and communicate them in a coherent and clear manner”, or “this sort of reasoning in a short soundbite isn't winning any support” or “he gets so many of these opportunities on national TV to argue our case and fails to communicate it well enough for the general public to actually learn something”.

And here your criticism is even more ridiculous than characterizing RP as “an old man rambling incoherently”. Your pre-written 3-point response implies you think you could do better. Well I don’t think such interviews allow guests the time to formulate and write out well-structured replies before reciting them. Ron’s phenomenal recall and response time makes what is excruciatingly difficult seem easy (and makes SOME people think they could do better – ha). In fact, it is Ron’s superior performance in short interviews (most designed to hijack him – at least most of the early ones) that is largely responsible for his fame and our movement(s).

I mean OOH all criticism is appropriate here, but OTOH yours implies that something is broken and needs fixed. But all evidence suggests the opposite. So here are some critical words for you: If it ain’t broke, don’t try to fix it!

Or maybe I am totally wrong about you. Maybe you CAN do better. Maybe you ARE doing better. And maybe you should direct us to your campaign/activism information so that we can start watching YOUR interviews and supporting YOUR candidacy/activism.

Now, as far as my own criticism of Ron’s performance, it is totally unrelated to anything you have claimed. If there was anything that could be argued as an error of any significance, it was when he asked Townsend if she herself had ever been scanned or searched. I don’t think he was expecting her to answer, “yes, many times and I didn’t mind it”. But no matter; taking chances doesn’t always work, and he made his points anyway.
 
ivflight said:
The reason I think he lost this debate was that he changed the subject to talking about the wars. This is relevant, but the subject was on TSA screenings and his opponent stayed on point. Ron went on a rant about the wars and for most people watching I think they would have seen Ron as talking over her and changing the subject.
Click to expand...

It is not his fault you do not understand how they are related. :rolleyes:
 
I think that Ron did well for the most part, but he seems to change the subject to foreign policy issues regardless of what the subject actually is. I remember during the debates in 2008 they would ask him a question about taxes and he would start talking about foreign policy and blowback. Is it any wonder that he can't win a GOP primary? I mostly agree with Ron's foreign policy views, but I have to cringe every time he changes the subject like that.
 
A Concern, On a Private Level

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.
 
idirtify said:
I thought you gave up trying to criticize RP for doing what he does better than anyone, and which has resulted in creating one of the biggest freedom movements in history IN A VERY SHORT TIME. I wish you WOULD give it up, since such little things as THIS WHOLE FORUM flatly disproves comments like “it hurts our cause tremendously when he isn't able to gather his thoughts and communicate them in a coherent and clear manner”, or “this sort of reasoning in a short soundbite isn't winning any support” or “he gets so many of these opportunities on national TV to argue our case and fails to communicate it well enough for the general public to actually learn something”.

And here your criticism is even more ridiculous than characterizing RP as “an old man rambling incoherently”. Your pre-written 3-point response implies you think you could do better. Well I don’t think such interviews allow guests the time to formulate and write out well-structured replies before reciting them. Ron’s phenomenal recall and response time makes what is excruciatingly difficult seem easy (and makes SOME people think they could do better – ha). In fact, it is Ron’s superior performance in short interviews (most designed to hijack him – at least most of the early ones) that is largely responsible for his fame and our movement(s).

I mean OOH all criticism is appropriate here, but OTOH yours implies that something is broken and needs fixed. But all evidence suggests the opposite. So here are some critical words for you: If it ain’t broke, don’t try to fix it!

Or maybe I am totally wrong about you. Maybe you CAN do better. Maybe you ARE doing better. And maybe you should direct us to your campaign/activism information so that we can start watching YOUR interviews and supporting YOUR candidacy/activism.

Now, as far as my own criticism of Ron’s performance, it is totally unrelated to anything you have claimed. If there was anything that could be argued as an error of any significance, it was when he asked Townsend if she herself had ever been scanned or searched. I don’t think he was expecting her to answer, “yes, many times and I didn’t mind it”. But no matter; taking chances doesn’t always work, and he made his points anyway.
Click to expand...

Yes you are right about me. I do imagine I could do better and that is perhaps a fault of my character in general, I tend to be an arrogant wiseass although I mean only good in this case.

I guess instead of saying it hurts our cause I should have said that it doesn't help our cause as much as it could have.

Let me make it clear. Even though I'm not an American and I live in Europe in a social conservative country I love Ron Paul and his ideas with all my heart and it's because I'm so passionate about it I daily think about how to effect change in the general public to wake up from under the MSM spell and realize what is going on with their freedom, their money, their countries and so on.

I know he is old, I know it looks easy because he is very knowledgeable but I just feel if he could only give responses like he did in the first few GOP debates in 07 that he would attract a far larger number of support, that's all...
 
Am I the only one who finds it creepy how cnn is defending the TSA?

That woman is ok with having a TSA worker take nude pics of her children and molest them?
 
Theocrat said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
I watched this interview and RP said exactly what I would have said, only it would have been better if he had more time to explain just how and why the airlines' private security would actually be better, less invasive, and less costly for everyone than the TSA.

However the woman's comments were disturbing to me. The one thing that stood out is after she went off on how we should all be scared of terrorism, she said something like "perhaps there is a more efficient way of screening passengers.." which set off alarms in my head to mean "RFID chips would be a lot more efficient".

Is this whole TSA fiasco just a way to usher in chips planted in our heads?
 
Safety would actually be better if airlines were in charge of their own security checks. Right now, the airlines are forced to rely on the government for security. Who do you think is more concerned about passenger safety, the government, or the airlines who would lose millions of dollars and face horrible publicity if one of their planes got hijacked?

No airline would ever skimp on security because it would likely mean the end to their business. And, the free market would figure out which security measures are necessary...and I guarangoddamntee you it would not be back scatter xray machines and groping!
 
AGRP said:
Am I the only one who finds it creepy how cnn is defending the TSA?

That woman is ok with having a TSA worker take nude pics of her children and molest them?
Click to expand...

You are not alone. This morning they had a segment (I think it was a replay) called, "Myths and Facts" about the TSA. They didn't mention any myths at all, and gave a few facts we all know by now such as how many airports have them and how you only have to get a pat-down if you refuse the scan or other "triggers" (apparently including wearing a skirt and having a prosthetic).

Curiously :rolleyes:, myths they didn't discuss are:

  • Scanned images cannot be saved
  • Scanned imaged cannot be printed
  • Scanned images do not show genitals
  • Having scanners in only some airports will keep us safe, as terrorists wouldn't figure out to simply use the other airports as their launching point
 
Bruno said:
Curiously :rolleyes:, myths they didn't discuss are:

  • Scanned images cannot be saved
  • Scanned imaged cannot be printed
  • Scanned images do not show genitals
  • Having scanners in only some airports will keep us safe, as terrorists wouldn't figure out to simply use the other airports as their launching point
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PAF
Will TSA Steal Your Mug?
Replies
12
Views
882
Matt Collins
Matt Collins
A
Battle of the Stupid: The Debates are On
2
Replies
37
Views
5K
unknown
unknown
Bryan
Greatest Ron Paul videos
Replies
0
Views
341
Bryan
Bryan
DamianTV
Musk Backs Ron Paul as Federal Reserve Chairman
Replies
3
Views
251
TheTexan
TheTexan
Brian4Liberty
Ron Paul: Willing to Help Elon Cut Government
2 3
Replies
56
Views
21K
Matt Collins
Matt Collins
Back
Top