Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Ryan unspun

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Yes, the goal was to use TARP as a - slush fund -.

It's just another example of the corrupt Obama administration.

---------

Hit the road, Barack.

We need a new president.




posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
And I am supposed to trust a source that itself attempts to spread lies???

.... says the person who quotes left wing rag Huffington Post.



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?

Ryan is more qualified than Romney to be POTUS. Definately.
And he hasn't got the baggage that Romney has ...


Look at it this way.

Romney CEO

Ryan CFO...gets our finances in order.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

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 security
edit 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.


That kind of high minded indignation has a way of disappearing when tall buildings explode,

hundreds of citizens jump from burning buildings and fall on the concrete below or when

an Al Qaeda crop dusting small plane rains down nerve gas on innocent civilians.

OH, um....nevermind....about the civil liberties for now. - Stop Al Qaeda ! -

Here are some examples for you.

- Civil Liberties - Wiki
edit on 22-8-2012 by Eurisko2012 because: (no reason given)


Oh LOOK ! - damaging national security interests - why did they put THAT in there??
edit on 22-8-2012 by Eurisko2012 because: (no reason given)


"Necessity is the clarion call of the tyrant." --Disraeli. The legitimate purpose of the State, is to ensure and protect the God-given rights of the people. When one is willing to throw out civil liberties of all citizens to stop a threat, then one is actually permitting that threat to achieve its goals. People are afraid of terrorism so they ban guns so law abiding citizens can't have them either = terrorist win. People are afraid of terrorism so bank accounts can be monitored and even frozen without due process = terrorist win. People are afraid of terrorism, so we permit violations of the 4th Amendment = terrorist win.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Yes, the goal was to use TARP as a - slush fund -.

It's just another example of the corrupt Obama administration.

---------

Hit the road, Barack.

We need a new president.


Indeed. Look at what Obama did with TARP: paying off political contributers in Solyndra and giving 500 million of taxpayer dollars to Fisker to build green Karma cars in Norway. Way to go using taxpayer dollars to improve the American economy and create American jobs--not! And who is one of partners of Fisker? AL Gore. ANother example of fleecing the US taxpayer to pay off his political allies.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Did you go to the Civil liberties Wiki link i gave you ??????????

Did you read it???

Are you ready to behave like an adult?

They even mention - damaging the national security interests-.

Pull your head out of the clouds and join us here on Earth.
edit on 22-8-2012 by Eurisko2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


Yes, I read you link....and I give you credit for taking context and throwing it out the door. Here is what the link actually said:



The following types of speech are not protected constitutionally: defamation or false statements, child pornography, obscenity, damaging the national security interests, verbal acts, and fighting words.


It does not state that civil liberties damage national security interests, which is exactly what you were implying. What this means is that free speech stops when you verbally give the US nuke codes to the Russians and stuff like that.

So whom is the one that needs to grow up and be an adult? You couldn't even read this properly!



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


Yes, I read you link....and I give you credit for taking context and throwing it out the door. Here is what the link actually said:



The following types of speech are not protected constitutionally: defamation or false statements, child pornography, obscenity, damaging the national security interests, verbal acts, and fighting words.


It does not state that civil liberties damage national security interests, which is exactly what you were implying. What this means is that free speech stops when you verbally give the US nuke codes to the Russians and stuff like that.

So whom is the one that needs to grow up and be an adult? You couldn't even read this properly!


So, in other words - national security truly does - trump - civil liberties.

Wow, no kidding!



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


So, in other words you can't tell the difference! English isn't your primary language is it? Are you even American?



You're special buddy! I'd try to break down for you again but I think you have just let us all know what we are dealing with.

Next time you go ona trip with your alien friends.....don't forget your helmet.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 


I think you have a hard time admitting you were - wrong -.

So you instead resort to - crazy antics -.

It looks like the Navy Doc has seen the err of his way.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


I have no problem admitting I am wrong.

You have a problem with reality, as you have demonstrated many times. Oh ya, how did your "predictions" pan out in 2008? Did McCain still win in your world?

In my world, Captain Gummy Bear and his VP pick Scooby Doo took the election.


Sorry, that was a little crazy, but at least we now have something in common.



It looks like the Navy Doc has seen the err of his way.


How is that? Because he didn't respond after he figured out you can't read your own links and may just be one fry short of a happy meal?



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


I have no problem admitting I am wrong.

You have a problem with reality, as you have demonstrated many times. Oh ya, how did your "predictions" pan out in 2008? Did McCain still win in your world?

In my world, Captain Gummy Bear and his VP pick Scooby Doo took the election.


Sorry, that was a little crazy, but at least we now have something in common.



It looks like the Navy Doc has seen the err of his way.


How is that? Because he didn't respond after he figured out you can't read your own links and may just be one fry short of a happy meal?



I see more crazy antics.


That won't work. Lets give Navy Doc some more time.

I think NavyDoc has seen the err of his way.

It's my guess that Navy Doc attended a liberal university. I'll ask him when he returns.

I'm guessing a liberal professor has written on the slate of who he is.

On a positive note , Navy Doc agrees with me on TARP.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 




I see more crazy antics.


I see more irrelevant crap.

I'd love to have a conversation with you, but you assume everything and by looking at your past posts/threads....you are wrong most of the time.

So if you are going to lecture me about not admitting I am wrong, why don't you lead by example and admit that you are rarely right?

That won't happen, I know.

You have a job to do and your job is to say:

"Obama is on his way out."

"Romney 2012"

"All we need is 275 electoral votes and we got that From Paul Ryan."

**Insert daily Anti-Obama, National GOP-approved picture here**

Where do they put your pull string buddy?



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Did you go to the Civil liberties Wiki link i gave you ??????????

Did you read it???

Are you ready to behave like an adult?

They even mention - damaging the national security interests-.

Pull your head out of the clouds and join us here on Earth.
edit on 22-8-2012 by Eurisko2012 because: (no reason given)


LOL. I read the Wiki link (you do realize that Wiki is not exactly a good reference) and it explained the basics of the idea of a civil right and had a single line about the First Amendment not covering "national security issues." I don't see your point. Giving away state secrets is not covered by the First Amendment, for example. That's not exactly what we are talking about here. Were talking about 4th Amendment violations such as warrentless search and seizure, we're talking about 2nd Amendment restrictions, we're talking about 5th AMendment violations in the name of the drugs.

What's with the smarmy comment? I've never been anything but polite to you. Do you really need to stoop to that level in a discussion?



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


I have no problem admitting I am wrong.

You have a problem with reality, as you have demonstrated many times. Oh ya, how did your "predictions" pan out in 2008? Did McCain still win in your world?

In my world, Captain Gummy Bear and his VP pick Scooby Doo took the election.


Sorry, that was a little crazy, but at least we now have something in common.



It looks like the Navy Doc has seen the err of his way.


How is that? Because he didn't respond after he figured out you can't read your own links and may just be one fry short of a happy meal?



I see more crazy antics.


That won't work. Lets give Navy Doc some more time.

I think NavyDoc has seen the err of his way.

It's my guess that Navy Doc attended a liberal university. I'll ask him when he returns.

I'm guessing a liberal professor has written on the slate of who he is.

On a positive note , Navy Doc agrees with me on TARP.


I am a graduate of the United States Naval Academy for undergrad. Michigan for med school. USNA is not exactly a liberal University.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


Yes, I read you link....and I give you credit for taking context and throwing it out the door. Here is what the link actually said:



The following types of speech are not protected constitutionally: defamation or false statements, child pornography, obscenity, damaging the national security interests, verbal acts, and fighting words.


It does not state that civil liberties damage national security interests, which is exactly what you were implying. What this means is that free speech stops when you verbally give the US nuke codes to the Russians and stuff like that.

So whom is the one that needs to grow up and be an adult? You couldn't even read this properly!


So, in other words - national security truly does - trump - civil liberties.

Wow, no kidding!


That's not what that says. It says that, in some instances, National Security is a reasonable limitation at times to free speech. Sort of like you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater under the first amendment because that act of speech can harm another individual. Telling state secrets to the enemy is not a protected act under the first amendment because you harm your fellow citizens. However, by the same token, "national security" is not free liscense to violate the first amendment either.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Did you go to the Civil liberties Wiki link i gave you ??????????

Did you read it???

Are you ready to behave like an adult?

They even mention - damaging the national security interests-.

Pull your head out of the clouds and join us here on Earth.
edit on 22-8-2012 by Eurisko2012 because: (no reason given)


LOL. I read the Wiki link (you do realize that Wiki is not exactly a good reference) and it explained the basics of the idea of a civil right and had a single line about the First Amendment not covering "national security issues." I don't see your point. Giving away state secrets is not covered by the First Amendment, for example. That's not exactly what we are talking about here. Were talking about 4th Amendment violations such as warrentless search and seizure, we're talking about 2nd Amendment restrictions, we're talking about 5th AMendment violations in the name of the drugs.

What's with the smarmy comment? I've never been anything but polite to you. Do you really need to stoop to that level in a discussion?


Oh good! You brought up the 2nd Amendment!!!

You have the right to bear arms.


Can i bring my Glock 9mm on a United Airline flight?

Can i yell out the words " Hi Jack!" while standing in the terminal ?

---------
I find it interesting that you smear the credibility of Wikipedia. Which part is wrong?

--------
BTW, which University did you attend ?

Just asking.
edit on 22-8-2012 by Eurisko2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


Yes, I read you link....and I give you credit for taking context and throwing it out the door. Here is what the link actually said:



The following types of speech are not protected constitutionally: defamation or false statements, child pornography, obscenity, damaging the national security interests, verbal acts, and fighting words.


It does not state that civil liberties damage national security interests, which is exactly what you were implying. What this means is that free speech stops when you verbally give the US nuke codes to the Russians and stuff like that.

So whom is the one that needs to grow up and be an adult? You couldn't even read this properly!


So, in other words - national security truly does - trump - civil liberties.

Wow, no kidding!


That's not what that says. It says that, in some instances, National Security is a reasonable limitation at times to free speech. Sort of like you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater under the first amendment because that act of speech can harm another individual. Telling state secrets to the enemy is not a protected act under the first amendment because you harm your fellow citizens. However, by the same token, "national security" is not free liscense to violate the first amendment either.


Well, that was the argument:

Go back to earlier posts.

Here it is: -- National Security trumps civil liberties --

You have given several examples that i am correct.


The best example is the Patriot Act.
- Patriot Act - Wiki



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Did you go to the Civil liberties Wiki link i gave you ??????????

Did you read it???

Are you ready to behave like an adult?

They even mention - damaging the national security interests-.

Pull your head out of the clouds and join us here on Earth.
edit on 22-8-2012 by Eurisko2012 because: (no reason given)


LOL. I read the Wiki link (you do realize that Wiki is not exactly a good reference) and it explained the basics of the idea of a civil right and had a single line about the First Amendment not covering "national security issues." I don't see your point. Giving away state secrets is not covered by the First Amendment, for example. That's not exactly what we are talking about here. Were talking about 4th Amendment violations such as warrentless search and seizure, we're talking about 2nd Amendment restrictions, we're talking about 5th AMendment violations in the name of the drugs.

What's with the smarmy comment? I've never been anything but polite to you. Do you really need to stoop to that level in a discussion?


Oh good! You brought up the 2nd Amendment!!!

You have the right to bear arms.


Can i bring my Glock 9mm on a United Airline flight?

Can i yell out the words " Hi Jack!" while standing in the terminal ?

---------
I find it interesting that you smear the credibility of Wikipedia. Which part is wrong?

--------
BTW, which University did you attend ?

Just asking.
edit on 22-8-2012 by Eurisko2012 because: (no reason given)


You should be able to bring your Glock on an airline. If more law abiding citizens were allowed to exercise their rights in more locations, there would be less opportunities for criminals and terrorists. THe bad guys love disarmed victims.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


Yes, I read you link....and I give you credit for taking context and throwing it out the door. Here is what the link actually said:



The following types of speech are not protected constitutionally: defamation or false statements, child pornography, obscenity, damaging the national security interests, verbal acts, and fighting words.


It does not state that civil liberties damage national security interests, which is exactly what you were implying. What this means is that free speech stops when you verbally give the US nuke codes to the Russians and stuff like that.

So whom is the one that needs to grow up and be an adult? You couldn't even read this properly!


So, in other words - national security truly does - trump - civil liberties.

Wow, no kidding!


That's not what that says. It says that, in some instances, National Security is a reasonable limitation at times to free speech. Sort of like you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater under the first amendment because that act of speech can harm another individual. Telling state secrets to the enemy is not a protected act under the first amendment because you harm your fellow citizens. However, by the same token, "national security" is not free liscense to violate the first amendment either.


Well, that was the argument:

Go back to earlier posts.

Here it is: -- National Security trumps civil liberties --

You have given several examples that i am correct.


The best example is the Patriot Act.
- Patriot Act - Wiki


No, you state that national security "trumps" civil liberties. That is a bit of an absolute statement and, the very fact that some national security issues are held out as "exemptions" indicates that the consensus is not that NS "trumps" civil liberties, but that NS and Civil LIberties should be balanced when, in rare instance, they contradict each other. Would you agree or disagree that your home should be searched at random, without warrent, in the name of national security.

I already answered. My undergraduate education was at the United States Naval Academy. Before that, I was an enlisted Marine Corps rifleman (O311).



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Come on doctor. - A shoot out on a civilian airliner at 30,000 feet? -

Give me a break.


Lets be reasonable. - One bullet hitting the window? -

Do you want to be the one flying out the window as the cabin depressurizes?






top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join