Can we all FINALLY agree on something - namely, that Ron Paul really IS an idiot?

Question

He was asked in tonight's (9/5) debate about saying that if passengers had guns on 9/11, it wouldn't have happened.

Paul said he was misquoted, so he corrected the content of the question - fair enough. He said that the government has no role in protecting passengers, that it's the airlines' responsibility, and that if the government didn't impose laws forbidding airlines from protecting their property, and passengers, with guns, then 9/11 would not have happened.

He then proceeded to babble incoherently in an effort to drive home his point that airlines should have been allowed to protect their property.

NEWS FLASH: Airlines were SOLELY responsible ON 9/11 for airport security, with NO government operational involvement in checkpoint protocol or in hiring security screeners. In fact, the screeners at that time were all actually airline employees, paid minimum wage, who would have been flipping burgers at McDonald's if not working for the airlines.

Case closed.

Darth - ON 9/11 (and before), Jackhole. TSA came into existence only AFTER a national calamity that everyone had predicted for years. The US was the ONLY industrialized country without government screening on 9/11.

JustGoodFolk - Fair enough. I never saw the need to berate him so aggressively until tonight, but now he's earned his exit from the race.

Tater - Thumbs down granted. READ my post - FAA had zero operational involvement, management of protocols was entirely hands-off, and the US was unique in the industrialized world in this way. FACT: 9/11 was a terrorist plot, but it was enabled by air carriers who had lobbied the government for YEARS to stay out of the airports (lest it cost another dollar to sell a ticket).

Edge - Lack of cogency is a disqualifier for the presidency. You disagree?

CharlieG - Please edit your post. Don't see what you're saying.

CharlieG - OK, I see. Without getting into a critique of libertarianism, I'm just bothered that Ron Paul made such an egregiously erroneous claim about the role of airlines and government on 9/11.

Yorkie - I actually agree with you, especially about his position on the Patriot Act and the Constitution. But I observe libertarians' approach to government as far more Grover Norquist than of anything to do with the Constitution - which is to say, they strain for any point that is dismissive of government, rather than acknowledging any citizenly responsibility for OWNING government and holding it accountable.

Answer 1

I am against big government also but in certain cases government has to take the lead or it will not be done!! RP is way out of his class with his libertarian agenda

Answer 2

Well, he's questioning this "give them what you want and they'll go away mentality" Really, if even one passenger had the other kind of mentality (the not I'm not going out like this one) (and was legally carrying) than those buildings in New York would still be standing today...but I guess you don't agree with that either right? Well then, continue on being a sheep. Oh and I guess the FAA gets of clean right? Please.

Our way of life (currently as it is) encourages that you shut up and do as you are told. Sometimes these come in the forms of laws (patriot act, requirements of insurance, etc) that you do not really need, but you continue to do it anyways, because let's face it you rather not deal with it right? It's that kind of thinking that gets people killed. Fortunately some people in the flight heading towards the White House overcame this mentality and fought against the terrorists giving up their lives in the process to protect the lives of others. Libertarians in general, do not believe in that kind of thinking.

Also whats the big deal in letting someone carry a firearm legally (Concealed Weapons permit)? People do it all the times, and if you read the stats on that you'd notice CCW permit holders hardly ever shoot anyone or have "mistakes."

Answer 3

Would guns on planes have stopped 9/11? A guy with a legal gun shooting a crazy man on a rampage at the local McDonald's? Fine, I'll buy that. A team of armed terrorists on a plane would just wear flack vests, form a perimeter at the front, and kill anyone who moves. I don't buy that a couple of John Wayne wannabes would stop 4-6 armed terrorists who have a plan, training, and the element of surprise.

==Edit==
Just to be clear, I actually think Ron Paul has some really good ideas. A crazy one like this I don't like, but nobody is perfect.

Answer 4

NEWS FLASH: The FAA (an agency of the FEDERAL government) was in charge of establishing the rules for the airlines to follow at the gates on September 11th. The FAA ALLOWED knives with blades less than 4" long prior to September 11th.
So if the airlines were allowed to establish their own rules things might have been different.
I know that the TRUTH is not something you want to hear, so go ahead and give me the thumbs down.

EDIT: The airlines were REQUIRED to follow the RULES AND REGULATIONS established by the FAA and they followed those rules. Failure to follow the RULES AND REGULATIONS established by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT would have resulted in fines and other penalties. The government mandates the amount of taxes you pay each year, do you go beyond the amount the tell you or do you follow the guidelines they establish? If you say you give more than you have to give you are a fool or a liar, so why should the airlines go beyond the RULES AND REGULATIONS established by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT in enforcing the security at the airports prior to 9/11?

Answer 5

Honestly the guy isnt perfect. But get out of Iraq he will accomplish as well as the rest of the crappy interventionalist world policy, he'll also restore the constitution. Thats got my primary bases covered. That also fixes numerous other problems that exist from the military industrial complex. It will pretty much end the terrorist drive to attack us because if you have 2 neurons connected in your frontal lobe you know that they dont hate us for our freedoms. As well as the fact that the country is broke and spend more tax more is not a solution nor is spend more tax less!!

Answer 6

His positions on many issues aren't mine and what he said there I would also qualify as idiotic.
However when he speaks about foreign affairs and recognizes actions of the US government over the past decade in the middle east are partly responsible for the support al quaida gets from many Muslims he makes more sense than the rest of the GOP.
What he said there about airport security is idiotic but so is saying the terrorists hate us for our freedoms and what we did and do in the middle east has nothing to do with it

Answer 7

fyi folks, there's no evidence that you would kill everyone on board if you shot a gun. this is not a movie.

but keeping box cutters off a plane was too much of an intrusion, so we should let everyone have a semi automatic?

what?

Answer 8

I didn't watch it, but if it happened the way you relate it, yes that's pretty idiotic.

And apparently, the logic seems to be the more armed people we allow on aircraft, the safer flights will be...

What?!?!

Sure... Nothing spells safe as gang warfare at 30 000 feet.

Answer 9

Is that it though? All the issues he has the worst you can do is this?

Unfortunately if that's how you choose your candidates then don't whine that Bush is your representative and leader.

Answer 10

Yes, the man is an ijit. He means well and he seems like a decent guy. But President? Not just no, but HELL no.