Watch Out For Ron Paul

[TVMH]

[ QUOTE ]
And there is no damage until someone is harmed, thats what you dont understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe this is entirely correct, because it really depends on what you mean by "damage".

If unconstitutional legislation is passed, is the rule of law at all damaged?

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And there is no damage until someone is harmed, thats what you dont understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe this is entirely correct, because it really depends on what you mean by "damage".

If unconstitutional legislation is passed, is the rule of law at all damaged?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, if the legistlation was passed there was obviously belief it was constitutional, Congress doesnt waste time on something they know will be overturned. Thats why we have a SCOTUS.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
Seriously, though, the focus of the discussion should about the fundamental philosophical differences between Dr. Paul and all the other candidates.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, but I don't know them. I came here to learn them.

And I sure hope one of them isn't that he thinks we've had rights "taken away".

[TVMH]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And there is no damage until someone is harmed, thats what you dont understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe this is entirely correct, because it really depends on what you mean by "damage".

If unconstitutional legislation is passed, is the rule of law at all damaged?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, if the legistlation was passed there was obviously belief it was constitutional, Congress doesnt waste time on something they know will be overturned. Thats why we have a SCOTUS.

[/ QUOTE ]

Congress doesn't waste time on passing legislation that they know will be overturned?

If that was the case then no legislation would ever be overturned by SCOTUS, because all legislation would be in perfect accordance with the Constitution.

I think a more accurate statement is to say "Congress passes laws that they believe are constitutional".

If you examine voting records, I believe you will find that Dr. Paul often disagrees with the majority of Congress' belief in the constitutionality of many bills of legislation.

And certainly, SCOTUS has deemed legislation unconstitutional before.

The question is, do you agree with the constitutional philosophy of most members of Congress (either party) or do you agree with Dr. Paul's philosophy?

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
In my opinion the states should not have the right to decide what a person can and cannot put into their body.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, whether it be a penis or a syringe full of heroin.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
when I was in Vegas last summer, I had to throw out $25 or so worth of gels, soaps, toothpastes, and the ilk which were supposed to make me look beautiful, but apparently in a heightened state of terror alert, may have been destructive. The feds weren't letting that [censored] anywhere near an airplane.


[/ QUOTE ]

So we've lost the "right to carry hair gel onto an airplane".

Sheesh, if only the founding fathers could have forseen to put that obvious basic human right into the constitiution.

[/ QUOTE ]

You missed the first part of my post, that said I personally don't have a big laundry list of anything directly having to do with 911 (mostly because I don't travel much). The hair gel thing was meant to be half facetious, making fun of the fact that Copernicus demands stone cold evidence of people being harmed before he understands the damage.

But it was also perfectly applicable, since it had everything to do with 911 and our new policies. I lost $25 worth of my stuff (which I apparently decided was important to me and so I chose to buy it), as well as the time and aggravation of having to shop for new stuff.

It really disgusts me that people think like you, and I was hoping someone would reply exactly as you did. "Oh it's just hair gel! Who gives a [censored] lolol!" I guess you wouldn't mind if I snooped around and stole whatever I wanted from your luggage every time you traveled, as long as I could argue that I didn't think your stuff seemed very important?

I mean, it's one thing to not accept libertarianism's position on complicated fiscal issues or whatever. I can understand that. But to flat out claim it doesn't bother you when people take your stuff is to be either severely brainwashed by the neocon rhetoric, or lying.

You also missed my last sentence, where I said dwelling on injustices only having directly to do with 911 is to dwell on a mole hill anyways. If you want a complete answer, look to Borodog's post which sums it up pretty thoroughly in 6 bullets:

[ QUOTE ]
- Produce or refrain from producing as one wants
- Purchase or refrain from purchasing as one wants
- Sell or refrain from selling as one wants
- Associate or refrain from associating as one wants
- Utilize one's property as one wants
- Enter into or refrain from entering into contracts as one wants

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

The gel etc was your own damn fault. You must have been the only person traveling who wasn't aware of the restrictions.

And there is no damage until someone is harmed, thats what you dont understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL.

I was well aware of it, and fully expected the result. Does that change the fact that there was nothing I could do about it (other than surrender my right to travel on an airplane)?

Copernicus: Accidentally perpetuating the cause of liberty one post at a time.

[BeatUp]

ronpaulforums.com

[TVMH]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Seriously, though, the focus of the discussion should about the fundamental philosophical differences between Dr. Paul and all the other candidates.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, but I don't know them. I came here to learn them.

And I sure hope one of them isn't that he thinks we've had rights "taken away".

[/ QUOTE ]

I think a better place to learn them would be Dr. Paul's campaign website.

www.ronpaul2008.com

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
I got there, a federal agent searched my bag and removed the items. There was nothing voluntary about it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing voluntary about it? You mean they forced you to go to the airport and fly on the plane? It is a condition of travel that you voluntary consented too.


[ QUOTE ]

Your argument that this was voluntarily taken from me is a hopeless one.


[/ QUOTE ]

You could have chosen not to get on the plane, and kept your hair gel. You chose not to do that, as you obviously didn't value your "right to hair gel" as much as you valued the convenience of flight.

[ QUOTE ]

If there was an option to travel with airlines who are not regulated by the federal government, then you might have a point. But as it stands, I am at their mercy.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are numerous other travel options aside from commercial flight. That you disallow them as options because you don't personally find them convenient to your preferences doesn't mean they don't exist.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
why do you think it is OK for government officials, to determine how other people choose to protect their property or run their business, if those people don't necessarily agree?

[/ QUOTE ]

Have the airlines objected to this practice, or are you attempting to speak on their behalf?