Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Monday, January 23, 2012

Sen. Rand Paul Outraged that His Right to Privacy Was Infringed on His Way to Advocate for Infringing Others' Right to Privacy

Posted by on Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Sen. Rand Paul is outraged—outraged, I tells ya—that he was "detained" for refusing a pat-down after he set off a scanner at the Nashville airport. And I'd have more sympathy for Paul's disgust at the way TSA agents callously infringed his right to privacy, if he hadn't been on his way to speak at a "March for Life" rally in support of callously infringing on other people's right to privacy.

 

Comments (25) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
Yeah....

Because murdering an unborn baby is EXACTLY the same as refusing an violation of your 4th Amendment rights.

What exactly is wrong with your brain Goldstein? Traumatic head injury? Excessive drinking or dope use? Or are you really just very stupid?
Posted by Seattleblues on January 23, 2012 at 3:44 PM · Report this
Will in Seattle 2
Two wrongs don't make a Right.

Other than our American Rights of Privacy, Liberty, Freedom, and Unreasonable Warrantless Searches while traveling in the USA.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on January 23, 2012 at 4:03 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 3
@ 1, every time you sign off with a "have a nice day" or some other nicety, I keep in mind times like this, when the real you is on display. It shows that you're a phony.

No need to go over how a zygote isn't a baby, or how anything that can't live on its own is "alive." Facts, as always, mean nothing in the face of your beliefs.
Posted by Matt from Denver on January 23, 2012 at 4:04 PM · Report this
4
Rand Paul, Douche Canoe
Posted by Mugwumpt on January 23, 2012 at 4:25 PM · Report this
5
I picture #1 in his moms basement sitting cramped up in an old card board box with the words "Airplane to Italy" hastily scrawled in crayon on the side. Next to him is a wig mannequin with "wife" scrawled on it's Styrofoam forehead.
Posted by tkc on January 23, 2012 at 4:29 PM · Report this
venomlash 6
@1: I love how the man with no education or background in biology is telling us how we should look at gametogenesis through parturition. Seattleblues, I don't tell you how to ply your trade of carpentry.
Posted by venomlash on January 23, 2012 at 4:40 PM · Report this
7
@6 He can't hear you. He's on an airplane to Italy. With his wife. Remember?
Posted by tkc on January 23, 2012 at 4:44 PM · Report this
Cascadian Bacon 8
So he had his fourth amendment rights violated while traveling to exercise his first amendment rights.

Personally I am pro-abortion, really wish Goldsteins mother would have had one. But this is America and fortunately people are allowed to have their own opinions even if they don't agree with Goldy's
Posted by Cascadian Bacon on January 23, 2012 at 4:58 PM · Report this
9
@7

See, thing about planes is they land. Kind of a minor miracle than in 12 hours or so we can cross half the globe, though it's hard to remember when cramped into an airplane seat made apparently for something other than human beings. It's kind of a running bet which recovery is fastest in our family, jetlag or the back pains from the flight.

@6

Many years ago trained scientists thought heat was transferred through the medium of an invisible liquid called phlogiston. It's only a few decades since trained psychiatrists thought blitzing the brain with electricity could cure schizophrenia.

The worst hubris is that of the dogmatic scientist, certain that only they know anything.
Posted by Seattleblues on January 23, 2012 at 5:05 PM · Report this
10
@9: Keep fighting the good fight against those evil, fictional, know everything scientists.
Science is the process of learning new things. Guess what process corrected those false beliefs that are no longer held.
Do you see how that makes your last sentence sound really, really stupid?
Posted by Sean on January 23, 2012 at 5:15 PM · Report this
venomlash 11
@9: I do not claim to know everything about biology. I have no training in carpentry beyond a little woodshop class and a bit of home repairs. You have no training in biology beyond perhaps a little freshman bio, correct? And yet you insist that you know more than people who devote their lives to the study of organic systems. Which is worse: an educated man or an uneducated one making a claim to ultimate knowledge? (I would say the educated one because he should, due to his schooling, know enough to realize that he cannot possibly know all. Your saving grace here is your utter ignorance in these regards.)
Let me tell you something. When demonstrably incorrect theories are thrown off and discarded (as well they should!), it is not by the uneducated but rather by those learned in the appropriate field. The amazing thing about science is that it repairs and improves itself. It does not need the willfully ignorant monkeying with it.
Posted by venomlash on January 23, 2012 at 5:19 PM · Report this
Free Lunch 12
@1 Actually, "murdering an unborn baby" (sic) is an exercise of one's 14th amendment rights. Does that help you see the parallel?
Posted by Free Lunch on January 23, 2012 at 5:32 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 13
Sb thinks that, because scientists were wring in the past that they must be wrong now.

You were bragging about your command of logic as you learned it at college, SB. Do you remember which fallacy this falls under?
Posted by Matt from Denver on January 23, 2012 at 5:35 PM · Report this
BLUE 14
Bad post. Fuck Rand Paul and his Paulian views. Fuck Goldy for his tit-for-tat frivolity re the Constitution.
Posted by BLUE on January 23, 2012 at 6:04 PM · Report this
Greg 15
What we need is mandatory body scanning AND pat-downs for all US Senators and Representatives. Considering that they're less trustworthy than the general population, I'm sure the TSA will make it a priority.
Posted by Greg on January 23, 2012 at 6:38 PM · Report this
curtisp 16
Paul would never see the irony. He is silly enough to think that an embryo can make the person carrying it second class.
Posted by curtisp on January 23, 2012 at 10:07 PM · Report this
ChadK 17
@13 - I wanna wait for Seattle Blues but I just can't wait to answer your question for that presumptuous fundamentalist fuck. I'll resist the urge. My prediction is that you'll never hear another word from SB in this thread due to their having nothing more substantive to add to the dialogue.
Posted by ChadK on January 23, 2012 at 11:10 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 18
@ 17, you'll be right about this thread, but he will bring up that "scientists used to think blah blah blah" line somewhere else down the line. It's a stock part of his debate arsenal when the subject is abortion or climate change.
Posted by Matt from Denver on January 24, 2012 at 4:52 AM · Report this
19
@1: No murder if there's no baby. Scraping out a blastocyst or zygote doesn't count, cuppycakes.

And no pity for Mr. Paul. I hope they snuck a finger up his butt.
Posted by suddenlyorcas on January 24, 2012 at 8:41 AM · Report this
20
It's a tie as to what is more pathetic and indicative of mental illness.

Compulsively posting to a forum that despises you.

Flying to all the way to Italy and your first instinct is to immediately and compulsively post to a forum that despises you.

Or

Maintaining the delusion you're in Italy and compulsively posting to a forum that despises you.

Posted by tkc on January 24, 2012 at 10:05 AM · Report this
21
@13

I see. You get to decide what it is I think and respond to that imaginary thing?

Nice game if you're the one making the imaginary thoughts up, I guess.

FYI

I made no proposition logically or otherwise. I merely note that science has gotten it wrong before. So, correect me if I'm wrong, it would be a bit difficult to have made a logical fallacy.
Posted by Seattleblues on January 24, 2012 at 12:03 PM · Report this
thelyamhound 22
I see. You get to decide what it is I think and respond to that imaginary thing?

That differs from your rhetorical disposition how, exactly? I mean, it lacks your other well-honed technique--the avoidance of challenge to your theses entirely, often accompanied by a proclamation of ignorance that any such challenge was mounted--but the base assumption looks pretty much the same from here.
Posted by thelyamhound http://thebayinghound.blogspot.com on January 24, 2012 at 12:45 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 23
@ 21, projecting now? I guess my insights about how you conduct yourself on SLOG must be getting to you.

Never mind that for the moment. We both know what it is that you were saying @ 9 - as a response to what was said @ 6, it means only what I said it meant @ 13. Of course, you may have simply written your thoughts @ 9 poorly - if you didn't mean "science is wrong now because it was wrong before," you need to clarify what it was you DID mean. (Or say what it was you wish @ 6 had said - it could be another instance of "Seattleblues replying to what he WISHES was said, as opposed to what ACTUALLY was said.)
Posted by Matt from Denver on January 24, 2012 at 12:57 PM · Report this
venomlash 24
@21: If you're not trying to claim that science is unreliable, what point are you making?
Posted by venomlash on January 24, 2012 at 9:31 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 25
@ 24, what do you think he'd say if he mentioned that religion used to believe that there were a multitude of gods? It's about as relevant to his faith as his statement was to this discussion.
Posted by Matt from Denver on January 25, 2012 at 12:34 PM · Report this

Add a comment

Advertisement

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy