Rand Paul Reminds Libertarians: I'm Good on Civil Liberties, TSA and Drone Division

In the wake of his annoying-to-many endorsement of Mitt Romney, Rand Paul tries to remind the liberty-leaning why they should be happy a guy like him is in the Senate and in the public debate.

Today, he introduced in the Senate what he's calling a bill of rights of sorts for air travelers, and a separate bill taking the TSA out of airline screening entirely.

From his office's press release, that bill of rights:

Among the 17 minimum rights laid out in the passenger Bill of Rights: 

  • A TSA screener "opt-out" for airports, allowing them access to the Screening Partnership Program (SPP) and private screeners;
  • A one-year deadline to implement a screening process for pre-cleared frequent-flyers at all airports with more than 250,000 annual flights;
  • Authority to permit travelers who fail to pass imaging or metal detector screening to choose to be re-screened rather than subjected to an automatic pat-down;
  • Expansion of canine screening at airports, a more effective and less invasive method of screening passengers for explosives, as well as a strong deterrent;
  • Eliminating unnecessary pat-downs for children 12 years of age or under;
  • Right of parents to stay with their children during the screening process;
  • Guaranteeing a traveler's right to request a pat-down using only the back of the hand;
  • Protection of a traveler's right to appropriately object to mistreatment by screeners;
  • Protection of a traveler's right to decline a backscatter X-ray scan, a screening method with potentially harmful health effects;
  • Protection of a traveler's right to contact an attorney if detained or removed from screening;

I am very dubious about the "canine screening" part, for reasons Radley Balko explained here back in February 2011. The rest of it is a nice assertion of human rights against the TSA.

Sen. Paul on the second bill, removing the TSA from airport screening:

The second bill, S.3303, ends the TSA screening program and requires screening of passengers at airports to be conducted by private screeners only.

"Many of TSA's screening procedures simply defy common sense, such as 'enhanced pat-downs' of elderly passengers, young children, or those with disabilities. It seems that every day brings a new account of mistreatment by TSA agents during the screening process. While aviation security is undoubtedly important, we must be diligent in protecting the rights of all Americans, such as their freedom from being subjected to humiliating and intrusive searches by TSA agents, especially when there is no obvious cause," Sen. Paul said.

Paul was explaining to people on the radio earlier this week that they should look at his actions at a senator to judge him, not his political endorsements. As I blogged earlier this week about those appearances:

More important to the liberty movement, he thinks, should be what he's doing as senator. He talked up four bills he's introduced or supported just this week: to require search warrants for domestic drone use, legalize industrial hemp, end federal mandatory minimum sentences for all non-violent crimes, and end the TSA. He would ask his detractors to focus more on those things, and less on "politics, a messy business that is not what everyone would want it to be." 

Sen. Paul explained the need for his drones bill in a CNN op-ed:

When assuming office, every government official must take an oath to abide by and uphold our Constitution. Since 2010, I have made that my mission in Congress. Unfortunately, the Obama administration is not upholding nor abiding by the Constitution -- in fact, this administration is going to great lengths to continually violate it.

Its most recent transgression involves the use of domestic drones.... flying over our homes, farms, ranches and businesses and spying on us while we conduct our everyday lives is not an example of protecting our rights. It is an example of violating them.

The domestic use of drones to spy on Americans clearly violates the Fourth Amendment and limits our rights to personal privacy. I....have introduced legislation into the Senate that restates the Constitution.....The Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act of 2012 will protect Americans' personal privacy by forcing the government to honor our Fourth Amendment rights.

....like other tools used to collect information in law enforcement, a warrant needs to be issued to use drones domestically. The police force should have the power to collect intelligence; however, I believe they must go through a judge and request a warrant to do so.....My bill will restate the Fourth Amendment and protect American's privacy by forcing police officials to obtain a warrant before using domestic drones.

There are some exceptions within this bill, such as the patrol of our national borders, when immediate action is needed to prevent "imminent danger to life," and when we are under a high risk of a terrorist attack. Otherwise, the government must have probable cause that led them to ask for a warrant before the use of drones is permitted.

If the warrant is not obtained, this act would allow any person to sue the government. This act also specifies that no evidence obtained or collected in violation of this act can be admissible as evidence in a criminal, civil or regulatory action.

Mike Riggs blogged about the drone bill the other day.

My book Ron Paul's Revolution: The Man and the Movement He Inspired.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Keep going, Rand... you're doing good, but you need to make that list longer.

    Not that Robama would do any of those things... but still.

  • Hyperion||

    The currnet congress won't pass any of them either, which is the real problem. The Robama will mindlessly sign antything that crosses it's desk.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Libertarians need to learn the dark art of slipping seemingly innocuous poison pills into popular legislation.

  • Cytotoxic||

    THIS. We need sleeper agents in the Congress. If the puritans here will have it.

  • Cyto||

    Yeah, sure... he may be introducing legislation that is radically more libertarian than anyone else in the Senate, but he said something in a speech that I disagree with!!

  • Sevo||

    "In the wake of his annoying-to-many endorsement of Mitt Romney, Rand Paul tries to remind the liberty-leaning why they should be happy a guy like him is in the Senate and in the public debate."

    I remain 'annoyed'.

  • JD||

    Me too. I like Rand Paul but will always be wary as long as he has an (R) next to his name.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Have fun with your anti-partisan partisan obsession you two.

  • ||

    Remaining distrustful and wary of the two main parties is an obsession?

  • Cytotoxic||

    Distrstful and paranoid are two different things. See KFP below.

  • Anacreon||

    does your handle have anything to do with cytoxan? I might have to start on that soon.

  • ||

    As much as I hate both parties not voting for someone because of the letter next of their name is just as retarded as voting for someone because of the letter next to their name.

  • ||

    You have a choice. You can vote for liberty-minded (as rare as they are) individuals with a D or an R after their name, or you can vote for someone who couldn't win a contest for dog-catcher.

    We're just too scary to people in our unadulterated form.

    Go with actions before words, and even words before affiliation.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    +1

  • mad libertarian guy||

    If public endorsements of candidates are meaningless when they're done by Oprah, they're just as meaningless when said by another politician.

    Look at his actions. He's done what he's said he'd do, and that's a lot more meaningful than what he said in some speech somewhere. In a perfect world, he shouldn't have made the endorsement, but it appears he views not Obama as a better option than Obama regardless of who it is. Endorsing Johnson (after his dad admitting he doesn't have the delegates necessary to win - short of something slick up his sleeve) or any other candidate doesn't help with giving us not Obama, and allows the door to remain open for a GOP candidacy for president in future elections.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I don't get the ire at Rand. It's no big deal, and he's about the best we've got in the Senate. His dad is leaving the House, too, so be thankful for what little we've got.

  • Sevo||

    I am, but why do what he did?

  • Pro Libertate||

    Dunno. Probably some horse trading going on, as Rand is fairly popular, and his endorsement is worth something.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Why did Snape betray Dumbledore?

  • Cytotoxic||

    So he could have a snowball's change at directing the GOP? So he could actually-horror of horrors-succeed?!?!

  • Pro Libertate||

    Not that I'd personally endorse Romney, but that's a different issue.

  • ||

    Nope that's it, stating that you don't get why it's a big deal that Rand endorsed him ipso facto makes you a Romney supporter. Tulpa will be mailing you your button and yard sign next week.

  • mr simple||

    Damnit, now I'll have to get a whole new wardrobe.

  • Ice Nine||

    I don't get the ire at Rand.

    You don't? Surely you've been here long enough to understand that it's all or nothing for many libertarians. Rand has committed the cardinal sin of agreeing with some of the views of a - whoooo - "TEAM" member.

  • Sevo||

    "You don't? Surely you've been here long enough to understand that it's all or nothing for many libertarians."

    Uh, getting annoyed at someone is hardly a call for 'all or nothing'.

  • Ice Nine||

    Breaching "all or nothing" is however a call for many of them to get annoyed. Which is of course, contrary to the way you turned it, the point I actually made.

  • Sevo||

    "Which is of course, contrary to the way you turned it, the point I actually made."
    Or maybe your 'point' wasn't all that accurate.

  • Ice Nine||

    That's why you turned it around? Logic fail. Bye.

  • Sevo||

    Ice Nine|6.15.12 @ 7:45PM|#
    "That's why you turned it around? Logic fail. Bye."

    Gee, sorry I called you on your bullshit.
    Well, not really.

  • ||

    You said more than you intended to.

  • ||

    Not for me. Then again, I don't identify as a libertarian.

  • John Thacker||

    The Senate has 99 problems but Rand isn't one?

  • ||

    ^^ Thread winner

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Who should Rand have endorsed? Johnson, whose position on abortion is directly contrary to Ron's frequently-state prolife position? Goode, the Constitution Party immigration-restrictionist? The Green party?

  • ||

    Is it set in stone that he must endorse someone?

  • Sevo||

    Eduard van Haalen|6.15.12 @ 6:38PM|#
    "Who should Rand have endorsed?"

    Pretty sure that guy/gal Nobody is running again this year.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Well, if Nobody would be an improvement on Obama, that would be one thing. But Rand seems to think Romney is slightly preferable, among other reasons because his party can be influenced by people like Rand - if they don't throw away their influence by endorsing, say, Nobody.

  • ||

    I sincerely doubt giving his official endorsement is the difference between having real influence or no influence on Romney, as you seem to imply.

  • Whahappan?||

    It's more than just Romney. There are others within the Republican party that can help Rand, and will be more willing to because of his endorsement. Look, I'm an extreme libertarian, leaning toward anarchist, but even I understand his endorsement, given his position within the RP.

  • Sevo||

    "if they don't throw away their influence"

    Is this sort of similar to 'wasting' my vote?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    If you're a *Republican* Senator with growing influence in a segment of your party, then being neutral re the Republican Presidential candidate *would* be wasteful, considering the lame alternatives.

  • ||

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_qHqZ.....1_c540.jpg

    But don't worry, government screening agents are on the case. No way in hell Congress abolishes the TSA.

  • Sevo||

    OK, no PM links?:
    "The [CA] Legislature on Friday met its constitutional deadline by passing a ['balanced'] budget for the fiscal year that begins July 1, approving a plan that largely relies on the hope that voters will approve billions of dollars in tax increases at the ballot box in November."

    I didn't make that up:
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/......DTLtsp=1

  • ||

    I would be surprised, if I didn't see the state it was coming out of.

    Had an interesting conversation with a Cali ex-pat here in Texas a few weekends ago. She claims they are more free than we are because she could buy booze on any day of the week, at any time, and people smoke weed pretty much openly. She thinks Texas is a despotism compared to that (we still have some blue-laws).

    I tried to explain to her about economic freedom, but she said that since she doesn't run a business, she never really thought about it before. But the lack of public opposition to sex-shops (which in many Texas cities are very hard to get approved) and ability to purchase booze at 3:00 a.m. on Sunday overrode all other objections.

  • ||

    You'll get plenty of people like that, I'm sure.

    "In my state, vibrators are sold in more shops than in your state. That my state imposes tyrannical, ruinous economic regulations, and makes your state's regulatory regime look like the Anarchist's Utopia, is completely irrelevant to me, because HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR."

  • ||

    Has she ever used a service or product?

  • ||

    +1. That's what I don't understand, Apatheist. Do these people honestly not get that economies and the rules that govern them are not separated from every other aspect of life by some magical barrier? Economic regulations affect everything.

  • ||

    This is easiest to see with the protectionist advocacy that both TEAMS love. Protectionism may benefit a small group of people, say steel workers, but free trade benefits all consumers of that product. Basically protectionist laws is asking for everybody to subsidize a small group of workers.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Do these people honestly not get that economies and the rules that govern them are not separated from every other aspect of life by some magical barrier?

    Of course not,
    They're mostly victims of public schooling.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Did you explain to her that it wouldn't matter if sex shops and liquor stores were legal if no one could afford to run one because of the rapacious greed of the state nomenklatura?

  • ||

    And then they came for the sex shop owners and liquor sellers and I said nothing...

  • Sevo||

    Gojira,
    Bread and circuses and all that. And the analogy can be taken further; the state ruining the economy while handing out goodies, etc.
    Next time, try pointing out the un-funded bills that CA has to pay.

  • ||

    Oh, I did. Good and hard.

  • Sevo||

    Did she figure 'someone else' is going to pay all that dough?

  • General Butt Naked||

    Jesus Jim, where do you meet these people? Gawd.

    Did you remind her that while she has minor affronts to her personal freedom there are billionaires out there paying taxes; which is totally like worse than slavery?

  • Keith3D||

    In California, I don't think you can buy booze after 2 AM.

    And don't forget about the arbitrary gun laws in California, where they ban anything scary-looking.

    As usual, you're only free to do the things the voters approve of.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    and ability to purchase booze at 3:00 a.m. on Sunday overrode all other objections.

    You can't legally purchase alcohol between 2am and 6am anywhere in CA.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I tried to explain to her about economic freedom, but she said that since she doesn't run a business, she never really thought about it before.

    Which is why utilitarian arguments for liberty are effective with some people.

    There is a reason why TX's economy is so much better than CA's and that reason is summarized with a certain L word.

  • ||

    ...such as their freedom from being subjected to humiliating and intrusive searches by TSA agents, especially when there is no obvious cause...

    SCOTUS: We do not find that freedom enumerated anywhere in the constitution. Carry on.

  • ||

    It's exceptionally fucked up. "Only what's explicitly delegated" became "anything and everything that is not expressly forbidden."

  • ant1sthenes||

    Also, "things that are expressly forbidden, if you've got a really good excuse. Or just thought it would be a good idea."

  • ||

    The opposition to the Bill of Rights clearly go this one right. Their worries that enumerating a small portion of rights would lead to the enshrinement of only those rights has been borne out.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Anyone that remembers how Tommy Thompson failed to endorse his own brother, Ed, for public office, might still be disappointed like I was and still am.

    Then again, I think in that case, the GOP pretty much threatened Tommy if he didn't fall in line with Team Red.

    Then again again, Ed Thompson was an LP candidate, which wouldn't preclude Rand from supporting his own father.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    In other words... I'd bet Rand got called into a room filled with Team Red power-mongers, and was told "Nice political career ya got here, Sonny. Be a real shame if something should... happen to it..."

  • mr simple||

    While I hope that Rand got something out of the endorsement, Rand already beat the establishment when he won office. The Republicans had already anointed another that Rand had to take down in the primaries.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Exactly. Rand wasn't "supposed" to win.

  • Elphie||

    OT: I went to my primary care doctor a few weeks ago to get a prescription for a medication I've been taking for a few years without incident. The visit consisted of a blood pressure check by a nurse, then a talk with the doctor lasting about 10 minutes. A few days ago I received the bill for the visit: $257.00.

    Any thoughts on why they're charging so freaking much (other than that I'm a sucker)? I have my own ideas, but sadly I'm fairly ignorant about how the whole medical system works. I just have a hard time believing a doctor wouldn't be happy to charge, say, $60 for the same services in a truly free market. (Of course, in a free market I wouldn't have to go to the doctor at all to get permission to buy the drugs I want.) I'm especially curious to hear from RC Dean, Dr. Groovy and others in the medical field.

    I'll be calling some other doctors/clinics to see if I can find cheaper services, but somehow I doubt they'll be forthcoming with their prices.

  • Sevo||

    "I'll be calling some other doctors/clinics to see if I can find cheaper services, but somehow I doubt they'll be forthcoming with their prices."

    I can tell you my dentist was perfectly open to stating prices and cutting me a discount, since I pay on the visit and he doesn't have to diddle with insurance admin costs.

  • Whahappan?||

    Dental services are much less likely to be covered by insurance, and hence more responsive to market forces.

  • Sevo||

    No gripes and neither does my dentist. He charges for a procedure, I pay it.
    Per GM below, I also pay (on visit) if he (or she, depends on who's available for my appointment) determines other procedures are required.
    Hey, if I didn't trust them, I'd go elsewhere.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Hey, if I didn't trust them, I'd go elsewhere.

    Don't you know that this is how PEOPLE DIE!!!???

  • Ice Nine||

    A guy called a tv repairman to come to his house. He told the repairman the problem. The tv guy went behind the television, took off the back (OK, so this was 40 yrs ago), fiddled around for 10 minutes then came around and turned on the tv and it worked perfectly. He said to the owner, "It was a bad tube; I changed it. That'll be $275." The guy said, "$275?! For changing a tube?!" The repairman said, "No, $50 for changing the tube; $225 for knowing which tube to change."

    Even for a Rx refill, your doctor is obliged to find out how you've been and to look for any problems that may have come up attendant to the med he is prescribing. He has expenses to cover attendant to that whole "transaction." He gets to make a profit. Blah, blah, blah. Oh, and incidentally, take a look at what an electrician or plumber will do to you for a simple call.

    That said, It still seems to me to be a little steep, though probably not as steep as you see it. Tell him you think that. Tell him you'll have to consider going elsewhere for your care. Oh, and I bet every one of those other doctors will be most forthcoming with their prices if you ask.

  • Sevo||

    "Even for a Rx refill, your doctor is obliged to find out how you've been and to look for any problems that may have come up attendant to the med he is prescribing. He has expenses to cover attendant to that whole "transaction." He gets to make a profit. Blah, blah, blah."

    Can't disagree. Dumping the insurance admin cost is one thing; still paying for defensive 'treatments', liability insurance, etc. means it ain't going to be cheap.
    But there are docs who are willing to treat a business deal as a business deal.

  • ||

    Your experience there lampshades quite a bit why I despise third-party payers so much, since they insulate patients/consumers from the true cost of a trip to the doctor.

    If I was a GP/PCP (I'm assuming here that's what you saw), I wouldn't charge $60 bucks, I can tell you that right now. I would probably charge in the neighborhood of $125-150 for a fifteen minute Level One encounter, assuming all you talked about was your HTN concerns. One of the things people need to keep in mind when visiting the doctor, and this does vary by provider, is when you deviate from discussing your chief complaint, that sets up the possibility of a another separate DX. For example, you get your BP checked, meds are in order, maybe need to be augmented or reduced, fine. $150. Now, in the same encounter, you ask about say, depression or maybe a peculiar mole, well, I am going to charge you for that as well, and makes it a Level Two encounter. $300, billed. $275, cash or credit at the POS.

    I also suggest looking into the services of an experienced ARNP, as they are qualified to deal with this type of lower level complaint, and many times, because their scope of practice is more limited than an MD/DO/DNP, they may be able to offer you a cheaper service.

    Getting an office to quote you a price before seeing you is exactly like passing ObamneyCare to find out what's in it: I'm not going to quote you a price until I determine what is wrong with you, if anything.

  • ||

    Addendum: I didn't mean to sound terse, Elphie, *stupid character limit*, but I was adding to what Ice and Sevo already said, and I was trying to be concise as possible. Generally, when you pay cash upfront and identify as "Self-Pay" that does give you some negotiable room, depending on the complaint and the discipline of the MD/DO/ARNP or whomever you are seeing, usually in the form of a discount after you have been seen, DX made, TX given, and RX prescribed. One of the main reasons doctor's offices don't list prices beforehand for everyday concerns is most larger networks don't know the price schedules since third-party payer is so prevalent and most patients see their trip to the doctor in terms of co-pay and not actual cost of the visit. This does vary by state to state, as some states it's all but impossible to accept cash D/T liability concerns, and that is something that third-party payer does somewhat negate. I hope this helps some.

    The surgicenter where I currently practice we do upfront pricing, since most of the surgical procedures we perform are lower risk and pretty predictable (as far as surgery goes) so we can accept cash upfront or half now, finance the rest. With third-party payers, we know with pretty high confidence interval we are going to get paid, even with all the hoops to jump through. With, as colloquially known as "bill and pray", we bill for services rendered and hope to SOD you pay in full.

    Otherwise, collection city and credit killed.

  • Anacreon||

    Also, the bs where the bill is 250% the actual expected returns from the insurance company, which has a deal with your hospital/provider group/whatever that it will pay 40% of charges not to exceed x, so naturally the bill is for y, which when multiplied by .40 magically reaches the limit amount x.

  • ||

    Shit. I hate that scam. And it is a scam, IMO. And patients never seem to understand this, even after going through the benefits coordination seminar with their employers. HSA's and PPO's are much, much simpler.

    Seriously, who thinks of this stuff when half their hand is hacked off from a tragic alligator accident, or something equally as dire, and they think they are going to die?

  • Sevo||

    Anacreon|6.15.12 @ 10:54PM|#
    "Also, the bs where the bill is 250% the actual expected returns from the insurance company, which has a deal with your hospital/provider group/whatever that it will pay 40% of charges not to exceed x, so naturally the bill is for y, which when multiplied by .40 magically reaches the limit amount x."

    Exactly the reason you can do "business" with some medical providers.

  • SIV||

    I'd say he had a boat payment due. Or maybe his mistress needs an abortion.

  • Xenocles||

    Perspective check:

    You paid over $500 per hour for their labor. Defense contractors charge less than that for their highest paid satellite engineers, including overhead, GA, and fee.

  • Xenocles||

    To put it another way: health pricing is so distorted it would make the vaunted military-industrial complex blush.

  • ||

    Which gets me angry with Reason sometimes, when they are going after defense spending so much, but overlook discretionary spending.

    Also, Xenocles, a jet fighter is not going to die, and is replaceable.

    Elphie isn't.

  • Elphie||

    Aww, how sweet of you.

    It's funny what you said above about discussing additional complaints. At the end of my visit, I asked the doctor about a lump I've had on my arm for the last ten years or so. He took a quick look at it and said it was a benign fatty tumor and nothing to be worried about. When I got the bill, I jokingly thought to myself that maybe that was considered a biopsy or something and that's why the visit cost so much... I guess I won't be doing that again.

    Good advice about Nurse Practioners. I have seen one before for a different medication, and he's way cheaper than my doc, but for some reason it didn't occur to me see him for this particular issue.

    Anyway, I do appreciate you taking the time to respond. I'm sure you could write a book on the subject if you had the time.

  • Anacreon||

    It is a lipoma on your arm and nothing to worry about unless it becomes painful or interferes with motion. Otherwise pretty much no insurance will pay for its removal. Dermatologists and plastic surgeons will pop it out for cash if you just want to get rid of it. Don't let them sucker you into sending it out to the path lab for an expensive look, it's a lipoma.

    This MD won't even charge you a cent for that one.

  • ||

    ^^THIS!^^ @ Anacreon.

  • BakedPenguin||

    There are also walk-in clinics. I was in almost your exact situation and went to one for $75 rx refills

  • Xenocles||

    Yeah, I'm not saying that medical professionals' labor ought to be dirt cheap or that their work isn't important. But $500 per hour is pushing excessive for even the most skilled "commodity" labor. If it was truly a 10-minute routine consult the rate was more like $1500 per hour. It seems like your service had better be near-unique to justify charging that much.

  • ||

    No arguments from me, Xeno, and yes, that rate is exorbitant, I agree. I certainly wouldn't charge that much, as I specified above, and Anacreon (that bastard :-) undercut (ha!) me. The market at work! But then, he's a psychiatrist/neurologist and I'm a general scalpel jockey.

    Which is one of the reasons why I became a surgeon, as it is specialized and a unique profession. I will also say the doc's liability insurance is much higher v. the ARNP's D/T scope of practice differential.

  • ||

    Yes, Rand is significantly better than 99% of Republicans, but that's a pretty low bar. Although I suppose we can't expect to have everything, only move in the right direction.

  • Hyperion||

    Well, let's see. Who do we have in congress to represent us, to at least some extent?

    Ron Paul - retiring

    Rand Paul - the arse that just endorsed Romney

    Justin Amash

    Who else? I mean really, sometimes Jeff Fluke seems to vote in a Libertarian way, and sometimes even Jim DeMint. But really? How many total representatives do we have? And this is all we have? I guess we still need the the curly one. Guess we better hope that Gary Johnson runs for Senate after the RomObamNey is elected, or else we are going backwards on our .7% respresentation.

    I need another beer...

  • Cytotoxic||

    Rand Paul - the arse that just endorsed Romney

    You're a fucking idiot.

  • Hyperion||

    Nice to meet you also, there, oh genius toxic one? I am an idiot? Why in your obvious great wisdom, have you deemed this so?

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Because you've allowed what Paul said in a speech overshadow all of the good things he's done while in the Senate. He is the only one demanding that the Senate talk about the things important to libertarians, but you somehow want to interpret him endorsing a candidate which represents his party as more important.

    That's why you're an idiot.

  • CE||

    Just require every member of Congress and every appointed official in any Cabinet level bureaucracy to be subjected to the standard TSA screening process every day before they go to work, by TSA agents randomly selected from airports around the country.

    Then see how quickly the standard screening process changes.

  • CE||

    There are some exceptions within this [drone] bill, such as the patrol of our national borders, when immediate action is needed to prevent "imminent danger to life," and when we are under a high risk of a terrorist attack.

    Oops... we're always "under a high risk of terrorist attack" according to the government.

  • Hyperion||

    Yeah, I mean how many times you been to the airport lately, CE? I have been a lot and every time I walk in there, all I hear is 'due to a heightened security level, blah, blah, blah'.

    Without a constant threat, a lot of otherwise unemployable neanderthal sloths would be unemployed. We can't be having that shit. Government must create jobs, you know.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    And we've been at a heightened level of security despite us killing OBL, various #2s, and untold numbers of foot soldiers who may or may not be terrorists over the last decade.

  • Ken Shultz||

    In the wake of his annoying-to-many endorsement of Mitt Romney, Rand Paul tries to remind the liberty-leaning why they should be happy a guy like him is in the Senate and in the public debate.

    Every once in a while, it's important for us libertarians to remind ourselves that politicians aren't the solution to our problems.

    Not even if the politician is Ron Paul. Not even if the politician is Rand Paul.

    Seriously. It's great to have somebody like Rand Paul in Congress. I guess. But I'd trade him in for another million libertarian minded Americans in a heartbeat.

    Our problems won't be solved by politicians until we get more Americans than that absolutely obstinate about their liberty anyway. In the meantime, enough with the politician aggrandizement already. It's counterproductive.

    Rand Paul isn't the solution to our problems anyway--no matter what he says.

  • ||

    +1

  • Hyperion||

    Of course. We need the voters.

    But somehow, the progressives, although being a small minority, have managed over the last 40 years or so, to hijack pretty much all of our government at every level, our courts, our schools, our media, etc.

    So, yeah, but we do need people who are gluttons for self-abuse enough to brave the political circus.

  • Sevo||

    "Not even if the politician is Ron Paul. Not even if the politician is Rand Paul.
    Seriously. It's great to have somebody like Rand Paul in Congress. I guess. But I'd trade him in for another million libertarian minded Americans in a heartbeat."

    Read the supposed 'limitations' on TSA in the article. Note that nowhere is there a clear statement that TSA needs to be disbanded (not 'limited') on the purely rational grounds that it fails in its stated goal of making passengers 'safer'.
    Ken's comment is correct; politicians, even 'good ones' aren't going to make serious changes; they need to 'go along to get along'.
    Until 'going along' means listening to voters who are fed up with intrusions based on phony claims.

  • Whahappan?||

    Agreed, however, we're better off with Rand in there rather than the tool he beat in the primary (the Repub candidate was almost assured of winning the general.)

  • ||

    I hate agreeing with you Ken, you cunt. ;)

  • Killazontherun||

    Every once in a while, it's important for us libertarians to remind ourselves that politicians aren't the solution to our problems.

    Not even if the politician is Ron Paul. Not even if the politician is Rand Paul.

    Seriously. It's great to have somebody like Rand Paul in Congress. I guess. But I'd trade him in for another million libertarian minded Americans in a heartbeat.

    Mister, will you sign this ball you just hit out the park for me?

    Afucking+

  • mad libertarian guy||

    I agree in principle. But you're selling yourself short if you think that just 1M more libertarians could adequately replace Rand Paul.

  • SIV||

    A whole lot of "conservatives" really like Rand Paul, and for the same things libertarians like about him. They don't like Ron so much, largely because of his foreign policy views and the Paultards. Endorsing the Republican nominee over Obama is the big litmus test for them. If Mittens gets elected and then pisses off the base (very likely on both counts) Rand is then perfectly positioned to mount a primary challenge from the right in 2016.

  • Hyperion||

    Conservatives may like him because he is pro-life, talks religion, and doesn't talk much about national defense at all. In reality, there is not much difference between Rand and Ron, except that Paul senior is straight forward honest and Rand is trying to play the political bullshit bingo game.

    What exactly is a Paultard? Is that anything like a bagger? Just curious, because all of the same people I typically hear use the term, can't post even one paragraph on a political site without using the word bagger.

  • Cytotoxic||

    What exactly is a Paultard?

    They are Ron Paul's personality cult members. Many of them are butthurt that Rand is playing politics ie actually trying to accomplish something. Success is anathema to these people.

  • SIV||

    Paultards are the culty ones who focus soley on Ron Paul. Many seem to have a poor grasp of libertarian thought. All have no clue as to political realities.

    The sure-fire way to identify a Paultard is when they attack the author of a pro-Paul piece and any commenters who, while favorably disposed to his ideology, aren't sufficiently pro-Paul.

  • Cytotoxic||

    They're the ones that bitched to no end about Reason daring to write about the newsletters issue. As if that made them 'part of the system'.

  • Hyperion||

    Good thing they didn't call Rand Paul an arse for endorsing Romney. Although, they would have been right in some people's opinion.

  • Hyperion||

    Gotcha, SIV. I have really never heard that term before outside of sites like Politico where you have mindless unemployed 30 year olds, posting from their mommies basement and generally calling anyone on the right Paultards or baggers.

    I guess since I am voting for GJ and pretty much vet all potential candidates on their Libertarian worthiness, that makes me not a Paultard. Although, I do have a great amount of respect for Ron Paul.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    To many DUers and Freepers, anyone with "a great amount of respect for Ron Paul" is a Paultard.

  • Hyperion||

    That is where I was coming from. This is the first time I have ever heard a Libertarian use that term. Most of the times I hear it, the only justification I can get from the caller, is something like 'You stoners love Ron Paul', or 'Yeah, you just want to do away with the Military and let the Muslims win!'.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    It is odd to read the term on here, unless it's a post from shrike or Tony or some other liberal dumbshit.

  • Spoonman.||

    Eh. I did some campaigning for Ron Paul in 2008. There were a lot of great people, and there were...some Paultards.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I did, too... and got called a Paultard, a traitor, and worse.

    By Blues AND Reds.

  • Whahappan?||

    Just because some misuse the term, doesn't mean it's not useful. I'm an ardent Ron Paul supporter, as much as I support any politician, however even I'm annoyed by the true "Paultards."

  • ||

    Love the Paul[s], hate the paultards.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Unlike most of the articles here that are nut punches, this one actually lifted me up a little(not like Jerry Sandusky you perverts-eww). So I'm just gonna stop right here while I'm ahead.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "Apparently a 'statist'" just recently confessed to being a soul brother to Sandusky...

  • widget||

    I'm not too keen on this, wrt air travel. Rand Paul is making a list with some affirmative rights. For example, "{The] Right of parents to stay with their children during the screening process". That should read "TSA has no right to separate children from their parents during the screening process". Is there are a difference? I think so. Rand Paul is the proxy adult and the TSA are the children. An adult has to give a firm and consistent "No" to child's uncivilized behavior. We don't need the government to say "Yes" to adults.

  • Sevo||

    widget|6.15.12 @ 8:35PM|#
    "I'm not too keen on this, wrt air travel. Rand Paul is making a list with some affirmative rights..."

    Exactly.
    As good as he is, the stuff in the article is 'the government will allow passengers X, Y and Z 'freedoms'...'
    That's backwards.
    It should be 'the passenger may accept X, Y and Z government activity at the passenger's choice...'

  • Mr. FIFY||

    OT, but liberties-related:

    http://www.reuters.com/article.....D720120615

    There's only one way the grand jury can rule: Toss the case out and leave the man alone.

  • Hyperion||

    If that story is accurate, well, then the guy is lucky that all he got was severe blows to the head. I would have cut his fucking nuts off and used them for Christmas ornaments after beating him to death. They should give the father an award of some type.

    Most of the time, people just act like stupid statist authoritarians when they have children, for illogical reasons... but in some cases like this, the punishment did fit the crime.

    But the way our current court system seems to work, the father will probably get a harsh prison sentence. Especially if he is a white male.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    A witness saw Jesus Flores, 47, "forcibly" carrying the girl to a secluded location and notified her 23-year-old father, who was attending a barbecue at the family's ranch outside Shiner, Texas, last Saturday, District Attorney Heather McMinn said.

    Hmm... was he a white Hispanic child molester?

  • Hyperion||

    Damn, I was just thinking that. On the other hand, if the Jesus was wearing a hoodie and the father was a white Hispanic, then every liberal lawyer in the country will be chompin at the bit to defend the Jesus.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    How long have you hated brown people, Hyperion?

    /liberal stoopid

  • Hyperion||

    It didn't really start until I married that damn Portuguese speaking brown girl in there on my sofa. The one that is also always sleeping in my bed. (:

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Wow... you must REALLY hate her, then. Exiling her to the sofa and whatnot.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Damn it, Fix! Beds are for Amurrkins ONLY!!

  • Mr. FIFY||

    What about hide-a-bed couches?

  • Hyperion||

    Well, shit, GBN, dem der furreners done got into the country and been usin their evil vodoo and macumba on us Ammrrkins to get intos our beds.

  • Hyperion||

    Well, if she keeps sassin me and all, I will relegate her to ... ah never mind, I just gave in again, damn me!

  • General Butt Naked||

    "Hide-a-bed couches" I like it. It's like 'futon' in 'murkin. Fuckin' swedes, or whoever, I hate 'em!

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "I hate the Dutch."

  • JoeZilch||

    "More important to the liberty movement, he thinks, should be what he's doing as senator."

    No.

    What's more important is the practical implication of what actually happens.

    He puts a bunch of bills into the Senate. They all get ignored or voted down. He gets a "debate" going which the libertarian minded lose, hands down. He has accomplished nothing but bragging rights.

    He plays "politics" and endorses Romney so small government folks trust his word and vote for Romney. If Romney wins we get a flaccid GOP (like under Bush) and government continues to grow by leaps and bounds and we continue in a negative direction.

    Until he actually accomplishes something in the Senate, beyond starting a conversation, I'll continue to be one of the annoyed.

  • Cytotoxic||

    That's right. Normalizing our positions and forcing issues isn't important. Waving our flag on HnR is the True Path to Freedom.

  • Hyperion||

    What are our normalized positions? Care to elaborate on one of them?

  • General Butt Naked||

    (end the drug war)*int|end the fed| d(monocle) = 1

  • General Butt Naked||

    (end the drug war)*int|end the fed|^2 d(monocle) = 1

    Jesus, what's wrong with me.

  • Hyperion||

    Nothing is wrong with you, General Butt Naked, Sir. The problem lies with the fuckhead poster named Cytoxic. He don't makem da sense.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Hm...a non-Paul Paultard.
    It's simple: when our positions are defended and pushed in government, they become normalized ie normal to people. Although I am interested in GBM's way. Pretty sure it involves a laser...and a liberty gun. Maybe.

  • Hyperion||

    Interesting. You seek to divide us among ourselves by acting like a clueless progressive?

    And you pretend to know how to move the libertarian movement forward? Meh, I think not. Your great wisdom is not getting through to me. And if you keep that stupid Paultard shit up, you sound like a fucking retarded OWS poster, and it's not going to do much for the LP.

  • Keith3D||

    "What's more important is the practical implication of what actually happens."

    You're using this argument inconsistently.

    Paul's endorsement of Romney is also probably going to be meaningless as it is very unlikely to affect the outcome. Meanwhile whatever he gains in the party by doing the endorsement might help him in other areas.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Meanwhile whatever he gains in the party by doing the endorsement might help him in other areas.

    Oh ho ho, whew, that's a good one. Once Romney is inaugurated Rand will be thrown on the pile of all the other crackpots who deliver the crackpot vote for the statist with the best hair.

    The people that buy this whole, "Rand endorsed Romney, that'll get us a seat at the table!" are fools and naifs.

    Fuckin' jokes.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Either he did that, or risk being drummed out of The Cool Old-Fart Team Red Club.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Speaking of, I saw McCain on the teevee bitching about superpacs or some other bullshit that he can't control anymore. I was kinda buzzed but I think it was about dirty forners giving money to the pacs, jeezus what a fucking fuck Asshole McCain is.

    We should trade him back to Vietnam for a couple of kickboxers and a lady-boy.

    ...if they'd have him.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Trade him for Tony? But he's not in Vietnam!

  • Hyperion||

    My wife and I were doing a tour of the US Navel Academy in Annapolis a couple of years ago. The tour guide was great. Guy had been there for 60 years and his knowledge of everything Naval Academy, including the history was very impressive. He mentioned to me that he knows John McCain personally and I had a very hard time... was biting my tongue, but the guy was really a nice little old guy and my wife liked him, so.... I had to keep quiet about politics. Saw McCains pics there on the wall where he bunked during his days there. He is among my least favorite of all congress critters, in the top 3 to despise.

  • General Butt Naked||

    @Fix, He hasn't posted here in a while.

    @Hyper, Yeah, that's rough. "So, umm you said you know John McCain personally? Yeah, umm, I have some questions. Is he as douchy in person as he is on teevee? How'd they stretch the leather over the skeleton to make the thing he's married too? Also..."

    *wife pulling you down the hall*

  • Jesse James Dean||

    I saw a post by Tony just a few days ago... It is possible that I was reading an old article, tho.

  • Cytotoxic||

    The people that buy this whole, "Rand endorsed Romney, that'll get us a seat at the table!" are fools and naifs.

    No they're not. This is how you play the game. If you don't like I understand. Some people are just in it to bitch and moan. How exactly would Rand be 'thrown on the pile'? He's not going anywhere.

  • Keith3D||

    "Oh ho ho, whew, that's a good one. Once Romney is inaugurated Rand will be thrown on the pile of all the other crackpots who deliver the crackpot vote for the statist with the best hair."

    I was simply applying the prior poster's logic consistently to his own arguments.

    I left room for the possibility of whatever I don't know about the situation. A fool and naif would be someone who thinks he knows everything already.

  • ant1sthenes||

    So, the latest on Sipsey Street Irregulars (the blog that first broke the Fast and Furious story) is interesting. Apparently one of the ICE agents who was alleged to have been killed with an FF weapon had been investigating FF weapon transfers, and had managed to intercept 50 FF weapons en route to Mexico. Hell of a coincidence.

  • Jesse James Dean||

    No Fucking Way. Usually, I would say fuck the police, but do have some respect for a cop that investigates the government.

  • wingnutx||

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Only the stupid could possibly believe this "science."

  • WangoTang||

    Sounds like that dude has a plan!

    www.Anony-Net.tk

  • ||

    While Rand's endorsement was a kick in the nuts, I'll reserve judgement until Romney is actually in office and starts implementing some statist policies. If at that point Rand supports these policies, whatever they may be, then I'll know he's really sold out. If on the other hand he rips Romney on every new piece of statist legislation he signs, then I'll think about trusting him again.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    So voting for Romney will advance liberty?

    How?

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    Because this isn't about "purity". This is practical. It sounds as if some of you are less than ten years old, and hence don't remember what happened to libertarians who have backed Republicans in the past.

    They got fucked in the ass, and then laughed at, by their Republican "allies". "We don't need you fucking crazy dope-smoking libertopians anymore!" Until the next close election that is. Then they promise; no more beatings! Just give me one more chance, honey.

    If libertarians do manage to do some sort of deal with Romney, what leverage do they have to hold him to the bargain? None that I can see.

    Dr. Faust appeared to make out well at first but how did it end for him?

  • Ryan60657||

    sorry, but this doesn't make up for the Romney endorsement

  • The Galatian||

    20 Year Study Compares Job Growth Living Standards in Conservative Texas versus Liberal Massachusetts. Texas trounces Massachusetts, even during high tech boom of the 1990's.

    http://galationpress.blogspot......issue.html

  • ||

    Rand Paul = Mitt Romney = Barack Obama.

    Get used to it.

    Rand Paul and Rick "Sanctum" Santorum say "I had to take one for the team"

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement