It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Why is the ACLU so quiet?
- National Security trumps Civil Liberties -
Just face reality . Obama did. Why can't you?
All the rest of us has. - You stand alone - Who else here on ATS agrees with you?
Originally posted by VaterOrlaag
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
I hate to be rude but I feel that your are being delusional here. Allow me to explain why.
What is the main difference between Obama and Romney? Is there one? Many? I can't really tell.
Also, I feel that Paul Ryan is not experienced enough and therefore, not qualified to be a VP candidate for any party at this point.
You can go vote for Romney but you'll just get 4 more years of the same, even with Ryan on the ticket.
Originally posted by VaterOrlaag
reply to post by Eurisko2012
Trust me, voting for Romney is NOT facing reality.
Voting for Romney is like voting for another set of blinders, probably with a jazzy color scheme and a false sense of hope.
Originally posted by VaterOrlaag
reply to post by Eurisko2012
It was not addressed to you and I would appreciate if you don't troll.
Your threads and posts are not amusing me.
Originally posted by VaterOrlaag
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
I hate to be rude but I feel that your are being delusional here. Allow me to explain why.
What is the main difference between Obama and Romney? Is there one? Many? I can't really tell.
Also, I feel that Paul Ryan is not experienced enough and therefore, not qualified to be a VP candidate for any party at this point.
You can go vote for Romney but you'll just get 4 more years of the same, even with Ryan on the ticket.
Originally posted by sheepslayer247
reply to post by NavyDoc
I think there is a big difference between gun control and "hand over all of your rights so that you may be safer."
I don't agree with either, but I don't see our right to bare arms going anywhere soon.
Similar principle. Also consider that a Democrat House, Senate, and President did not only not do away with the Patriot Act as promised, but expanded it. Seems that they are just as power hungry when they get their hands on the power as the next guy.
Source
Vilsack: "[W]hen You Talk About ... The Food Stamp Program, You Have To Recognize That It's Also An Economic Stimulus." On the August 16 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, Vilsack said, "When you talk about the SNAP program, or the food stamp program, you have to recognize that it's also an economic stimulus." From the broadcast:
Ryan seeks to reverse this impending cost disaster by instituting a new program beginning no earlier than January 2021 affecting only those aged 55 and younger. The plan has the following major elements:
Part A and Part B trust funds are combined to create one unified trust fund. The new Medicare Program and the existing program continue to be financed by trust fund revenues, Medicare payroll taxes, and general revenue contributions as done now.
By January 2021, insurance companies must establish competing healthcare coverage plans with specified benefits and limitations. Some would provide only high-deductible catastrophic coverage. Others could provide more liberalized coverage. Medicare would establish categories of generalized coverage. All plans which met specified requirements would become "Medicare certified" and eligible for premium payment cost sharing.
Each patient would select from the approved list a plan best matching his or her expected healthcare needs for the coming year. Medicare would reimburse the health plan a fixed amount of money for each enrollee for premium payment support. If the Medicare-provided assistance exceeded the premium required for the selected plan, that excess would be credited to a "Medical Savings Account" (MSA) for the beneficiary's future use.
Ryan currently estimates the reimbursement amount at an average $11,000 -- with further adjustment determined by income level. Higher-income patients would receive less premium assistance.
Beneficiaries with annual incomes below $80,000 ($160,000 for couples) would receive full standard payment amounts; beneficiaries with annual incomes between $80,000 and $200,000 ($160,000 to $400,000 for couples) would receive 50 percent of the standard; and beneficiaries with incomes above $200,000 ($400,000 for couples) would receive 30 percent.
After enrollment in a plan, all beneficiaries could, at their option, undergo an annual health "risk adjustment" examination. Results of this exam would be submitted to Medicare and become eligible for a higher risk-adjusted premium payment.
To further assist those individuals with incomes near or below the poverty level, Ryan proposes additional payments above just premium support. While any enrollee, regardless of income level, would be able to set up a tax-free MSA if desired, the new Medicare Program would specifically establish and fund an MSA for low-income beneficiaries to help them with deductible payments required for care procedures. The amount paid to those below the government-established poverty level would be equal to the deductible for the average Medicare high-deductible health plan. Those with incomes at or 50 percent above the poverty level would receive 75 percent of the full deposit.
Recognizing that Americans are becoming healthier than ever before and living much longer, Ryan further proposes that a phase-in of the start of the new Medicare program would, after 2021, be raised in a slow incremental fashion from the current age 65 to 69 years 6 months.
As proposed, the Ryan Medicare plan resembles the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). In the FEHBP model the government provides a set financial contribution each year. Employees and retirees have a variety of options, including catastrophic coverage plans with high deductibles, health maintenance organizations, and high-end plans with many choices of doctors and other providers. Everyone has a choice of at least 10 fee-for-service plans, but the exact number varies by where an enrollee lives. Read more: www.americanthinker.com...
Originally posted by Eurisko2012
Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by xuenchen
No.
Paul Ryan supported TARP and supported making the patriot act permenant. So don't try to sell us this garbage.
We know all we need to know about Paul Ryan.
All adults realize that National Security trumps Civil Liberties.
The Patriot Act was created by Bush and - endorsed - by Obama.
----------
TARP - the big banks paid their money back with interest.
Wells Fargo never really wanted it in the first place.
Originally posted by sheepslayer247
reply to post by NavyDoc
Similar principle. Also consider that a Democrat House, Senate, and President did not only not do away with the Patriot Act as promised, but expanded it. Seems that they are just as power hungry when they get their hands on the power as the next guy.
I agree. Good thing that I stick to that principle and will not be voting for either candidate.
At least I can say that I am consistent, unlike others. (not meaning you particularly)
And civil liberties are more important that national securityedit on 21-8-2012 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by xuenchen
1. No, the Ryan budget isn’t extreme
2. No, his plan doesn’t favor the rich
3. No, Ryan’s plan does not destroy Medicare
4. No, he’s not at war with women
5. No, he’s not a congressional obstructionist
Ultimately civil liberties and national security go hand in hand. As posted above, those who give away liberty for security deserve neither.
Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Originally posted by Eurisko2012
Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by xuenchen
No.
Paul Ryan supported TARP and supported making the patriot act permenant. So don't try to sell us this garbage.
We know all we need to know about Paul Ryan.
All adults realize that National Security trumps Civil Liberties.
The Patriot Act was created by Bush and - endorsed - by Obama.
----------
TARP - the big banks paid their money back with interest.
Wells Fargo never really wanted it in the first place.
Wow. Just wow. NOTHING trumps civil liberties.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Originally posted by NavyDoc
Originally posted by sheepslayer247
reply to post by NavyDoc
Similar principle. Also consider that a Democrat House, Senate, and President did not only not do away with the Patriot Act as promised, but expanded it. Seems that they are just as power hungry when they get their hands on the power as the next guy.
I agree. Good thing that I stick to that principle and will not be voting for either candidate.
At least I can say that I am consistent, unlike others. (not meaning you particularly)
And civil liberties are more important that national securityedit on 21-8-2012 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)
Ultimately civil liberties and national security go hand in hand. As posted above, those who give away liberty for security deserve neither.
Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
And I am supposed to trust a source that itself attempts to spread lies???
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Now why couldn't HE have been #1 and better yet, telling Romney the VP slot isn't open to offer him?