Ron Paul : Owns Fran Townsend Dept Of Homeland Security!

[qwerty]

YouTube - Ron Paul : Owns Fran Townsend Dept Of Homeland Security! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EYmGkVK0BM)

[qwerty]

Bump! :)

[qwerty]

Bump! :)

[awake]

Like I said in the other thread: All I heard was; we can't be fired, we can't be fired, we can't be fired, we're looking in to it, we're doing bad things, we can't be fired. Ron shredded.

[jmdrake]

Like I said in the other thread: All I heard was; we can't be fired, we can't be fired, we can't be fired, we're looking in to it, we're doing bad things, we can't be fired. Ron shredded.

I'm confused. Do you think Ron "shredded" the TSA shill or that Ron was "shredded" by her?

Anyway, here are my observations.

1) I wish Ron would stay focused on the question at hand. Yes there are broader points to be made about how the government is screwing up the economy etc, but when you only have a few minutes in a TV interview that's not the place to do it.

2) Ron left out the most salient points about the underwear bomber. The man's father told us his son was a terrorist, but our government refused to revoke his Visa. That's criminal negligence on the part of the government. Ron's point about bomb experts saying the undie bomb wasn't that sophisticated was interesting, but not very strong. (The TSA shill's counter about the "copier bomber" was weaker considering that the copier bomb didn't do anything either). Ron should have pointed out that bomb experts have testified before Britain's parliament that the new scanners wouldn't have stopped the underwear bomber. He could have also pointed out even if they could have stopped yesterday's underwear bombers they wouldn't stop tomorrow's tampon or suppository bombers.

3) I know Ron loves making the "blowback" argument, and it gives goosebumps to his loyal followers, but it does little to help the people who are scared today about terrorists who are already "angry". He needs to be able to effectively argue in the alternative and clearly say "The reason we're being attacked is because of our counterproductive foreign policy, but even if we assume that our current foreign policy is the best way to go, this policy doesn't increase our security because of X, Y and Z. Still we should consider countries like Germany that haven't been targets of Al Qaeda attacks and ask ourselves why."

[awake]

Ron shredded her...

[jkr]

STILL NOT flying f u tsa

[ARealConservative]

the better argument is where the bomb explodes is totally arbitrary.

you make the plane a little more safe. so what? Now we have huge bottle necks as all us sheep stand outside these security points. Blow that group of people up and it effects air travel just the same as blowing up a plane.

[Dissident]

the better argument is where the bomb explodes is totally arbitrary.

you make the plane a little more safe. so what? Now we have huge bottle necks as all us sheep stand outside these security points. Blow that group of people up and it effects air travel just the same as blowing up a plane.

Exactly, the egregious airport security measures need to be exposed as a racket. I think Ron was getting there by pointing out the statistical chances of being harmed in a terrorist attack. This kind of logic is important to discredit all of the hysteria surrounding terrorism.

The promotion of such invasive measures as making us safer (along with the implicit rationalization for the role of government to provide security in such capacity) is very dangerous. As the above poster mentions, there are virtually endless circumstances in which large concentrations of people gather. Under such assumptions, the possibility for government intrusion is limitless.

[qwerty]

Ron OWNS this one! :)