libertygrl
01-23-2012, 04:33 PM
Bill Anderson
LRC Blog
January 23, 2012
Not surprisingly, the NY Times took a nuanced approach to Sen. Rand Paul’s detention by TSA officials in Nashville today. The paper was quick to claim that Sen. Paul was lying about being detained and that he only was “escorted” out of the area.
What is more telling, however, are the comments, with the vast majority of them being attacks on Sen. Paul, not only for his standing up against the TSA, but also for his pro-life views. Some of the comments include:
The screening/pat down by TSA is no big deal. With my pacemaker I always have one or the other or both. I travel a lot and every agent has been polite and very considerate. I joke with the agents and always ask for a deeper massage and thank them for their consideration — they’re just doing their job!
And:
I fly often and am not a fan of the TSA. But just what else can they do in a time when people are bringing bombs onto planes in their shoes, underwear and even bottles of innocuous looking liquids. If the TSA stops the searches then planes will go down and people will die. So personally I’d rather be hassled than dead.
The problem is that Libertarians only seem to care about their own liberties and seem blind to how allowing people to do whatever they want often results in harmful consequences to others.
And one more:
…as a survivor of 9/11 I would agree that these procedures can be an inconvenience but I would never call them theatrics. I saw close to 3,000 people die because we didn’t take security seriously. As for Paul I guess he has a problem extending liberty to women. Funny how these “libertarians” don’t seem to get that the so called right to life shouldn’t in a civil society allow women to have a right to control their own bodies.
http://www.infowars.com/the-ny-times-hates-liberty-but-we-already-knew-that/
LRC Blog
January 23, 2012
Not surprisingly, the NY Times took a nuanced approach to Sen. Rand Paul’s detention by TSA officials in Nashville today. The paper was quick to claim that Sen. Paul was lying about being detained and that he only was “escorted” out of the area.
What is more telling, however, are the comments, with the vast majority of them being attacks on Sen. Paul, not only for his standing up against the TSA, but also for his pro-life views. Some of the comments include:
The screening/pat down by TSA is no big deal. With my pacemaker I always have one or the other or both. I travel a lot and every agent has been polite and very considerate. I joke with the agents and always ask for a deeper massage and thank them for their consideration — they’re just doing their job!
And:
I fly often and am not a fan of the TSA. But just what else can they do in a time when people are bringing bombs onto planes in their shoes, underwear and even bottles of innocuous looking liquids. If the TSA stops the searches then planes will go down and people will die. So personally I’d rather be hassled than dead.
The problem is that Libertarians only seem to care about their own liberties and seem blind to how allowing people to do whatever they want often results in harmful consequences to others.
And one more:
…as a survivor of 9/11 I would agree that these procedures can be an inconvenience but I would never call them theatrics. I saw close to 3,000 people die because we didn’t take security seriously. As for Paul I guess he has a problem extending liberty to women. Funny how these “libertarians” don’t seem to get that the so called right to life shouldn’t in a civil society allow women to have a right to control their own bodies.
http://www.infowars.com/the-ny-times-hates-liberty-but-we-already-knew-that/