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