08-07-2015, 07:08 AM,
(This post was last modified: 08-07-2015, 07:21 AM by Dutz.)
|
|
|
Posts: 1,393
Threads: 79
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation:
2
|
|
The republican debate
Posts: 1,393
Threads: 79
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation:
2
08-07-2015, 07:08 AM
(This post was last modified: 08-07-2015, 07:21 AM by Dutz.)
I watched the debate and here are some of my observations.
Trump: The most interesting part was people in the focus group after the show who said they came in supporting him and now don't. Trump said nothing he hasn't said before and in the same way he says everything. This means they supported him without ever listening to him. If that is common then his support is as weak as people think. Someone before the debate said his support is a big middle finger at the republican leadership. Probably true.
Rubio: Was and is always the most inspiring speaker- a little Reaganlike in that respect. I think, though, he is still a few grey hairs short of being ready.
Walker: Played the only card he has. He won three elections and did some good things (and what he said he would do) as governor and can do the same as president. If he can get people to believe then he can win, if true he could be a good president.
Bush: The debate didn't change anything. He is what he is - a moderate, a good guy, a solid governor. He would be like hiring a coach to take over a championship team. He won't do anything great, but he won't screw it up. Not what we need right now.
Huckabee: Very poised and said a lot of good things. We agree on a lot. Unfortunately, I don't get the sense he knows what he will actually do about those things.
(Rand) Paul: Looked like the middle child trying to get daddy's attention. As a true libertarian you would think he would tap into the nation's mood right now and be on top. Just doesn't seem to be happening.
Carson: I like him and how he presents himself. If I needed half my brain removed he'd be the man (inside joke from the debate), but I am just not getting a "ready for prime time" feel. If you want a "never been a politician" then there are better choices, even in this group.
Kasich: Who? Governor of Ohio, oh yeah. Nice guy. Next.
Fiorina: I didn't watch the first debate, but I will comment. 85% of the people polled said she kicked the entire first group's collective butt, this included Jindal and Perry. Dont' underestimate this woman. If it came down to Hillary and Fiorina, it would be no contest.
Christie: Since we don't agree on a lot I hate to say it, but dang I liked how he looked. He was confrontational in a good way and came across like he knew exactly what we wants to do, exactly how to do it, and he wasn't going to be stopped. I love all that. Bummer that I probably won't agree with what he will do. Of all the "young guns" (Jindal, Rubio, etc.) he looked the most ready.
Cruz: I saved him for last on purpose. I think the country is passed the point of no return, and the Republicans should die and be replaced like the Republicans replaced the Whigs. But if there is any hope of saving either this is the only one running in either party who could make a difference. If you are looking for the next Reagan, this is your only shot. Rubio shows signs but is not ready.
As of right now, I think I can say I support Cruz.
Trump: The most interesting part was people in the focus group after the show who said they came in supporting him and now don't. Trump said nothing he hasn't said before and in the same way he says everything. This means they supported him without ever listening to him. If that is common then his support is as weak as people think. Someone before the debate said his support is a big middle finger at the republican leadership. Probably true.
Rubio: Was and is always the most inspiring speaker- a little Reaganlike in that respect. I think, though, he is still a few grey hairs short of being ready.
Walker: Played the only card he has. He won three elections and did some good things (and what he said he would do) as governor and can do the same as president. If he can get people to believe then he can win, if true he could be a good president.
Bush: The debate didn't change anything. He is what he is - a moderate, a good guy, a solid governor. He would be like hiring a coach to take over a championship team. He won't do anything great, but he won't screw it up. Not what we need right now.
Huckabee: Very poised and said a lot of good things. We agree on a lot. Unfortunately, I don't get the sense he knows what he will actually do about those things.
(Rand) Paul: Looked like the middle child trying to get daddy's attention. As a true libertarian you would think he would tap into the nation's mood right now and be on top. Just doesn't seem to be happening.
Carson: I like him and how he presents himself. If I needed half my brain removed he'd be the man (inside joke from the debate), but I am just not getting a "ready for prime time" feel. If you want a "never been a politician" then there are better choices, even in this group.
Kasich: Who? Governor of Ohio, oh yeah. Nice guy. Next.
Fiorina: I didn't watch the first debate, but I will comment. 85% of the people polled said she kicked the entire first group's collective butt, this included Jindal and Perry. Dont' underestimate this woman. If it came down to Hillary and Fiorina, it would be no contest.
Christie: Since we don't agree on a lot I hate to say it, but dang I liked how he looked. He was confrontational in a good way and came across like he knew exactly what we wants to do, exactly how to do it, and he wasn't going to be stopped. I love all that. Bummer that I probably won't agree with what he will do. Of all the "young guns" (Jindal, Rubio, etc.) he looked the most ready.
Cruz: I saved him for last on purpose. I think the country is passed the point of no return, and the Republicans should die and be replaced like the Republicans replaced the Whigs. But if there is any hope of saving either this is the only one running in either party who could make a difference. If you are looking for the next Reagan, this is your only shot. Rubio shows signs but is not ready.
As of right now, I think I can say I support Cruz.
|
|
|
Find
|
08-07-2015, 09:28 AM,
|
|
|
Posts: 17
Threads: 2
Joined: Jun 2015
Reputation:
0
|
|
RE: The republican debate
Posts: 17
Threads: 2
Joined: Jun 2015
Reputation:
0
Had to work so missed the debate. I like Huckabee and Cruz. My biggest issue right now is I don't see a standout leader in the group.
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
|
|
|
Find
08-07-2015, 10:12 AM,
(This post was last modified: 08-07-2015, 10:12 AM by BelieveIn308.)
|
|
|
Posts: 2,216
Threads: 124
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation:
8
|
|
RE: The republican debate
Posts: 2,216
Threads: 124
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation:
8
08-07-2015, 10:12 AM
(This post was last modified: 08-07-2015, 10:12 AM by BelieveIn308.)
I thought Cruz, Huckabee and Paul did well. Paul didn't back down from Christie defending the Constitution's 4th Amendment. I thought Bush was the big loser. He didn't look Presidental and his Common Core answer was incredibly idiotic. I though Trump came across as Trump. He hit the same nerves, and the moderators really asked him no win questions. Carson's answers were well though out, and articulate. I'm not sure he has the leadership skills needed, but I liked his answers. After this debate I don't think Christie and Kasich continue. Kasich came across as rehearsed and dull.
If I had to rank the candidates, I would have to put them in this order Huckabee, Cruz, Trump, Carson, Paul, Walker, Kasich, Bush Christie. It certainly was not the Governors night.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." -Col. Jeff Cooper
If I had to rank the candidates, I would have to put them in this order Huckabee, Cruz, Trump, Carson, Paul, Walker, Kasich, Bush Christie. It certainly was not the Governors night.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." -Col. Jeff Cooper
|
|
|
Find
|
08-07-2015, 10:41 AM,
|
|
|
|
Posts: 1,393
Threads: 79
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation:
2
|
|
RE: The republican debate
Posts: 1,393
Threads: 79
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation:
2
I would be surprised if anyone got out. Bill Clinton didn't even get in until October of 1991. You know somebody else on the Dem side will get in. In fact, I would not be surprised if none of the Dems currently in wins the nomination.
I even thought this debate this early was rather silly.
I even thought this debate this early was rather silly.
|
|
|
Find
|
08-07-2015, 11:18 AM,
|
|
|
Posts: 794
Threads: 142
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation:
0
|
|
RE: The republican debate
Posts: 794
Threads: 142
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation:
0
I didn't watch it, as I don't subscribe to TV. However, I heard on the radio this morning that a few of the candidates were talking about that they would send troops overseas to fight ISIS, etc.
Well, I don't support that at all. I think ISIS is a threat, but not enough to warrant sending troops over, especially in this day and age when our military's hands are tied. IF they go in, it should be to WIN and "take no prisoners". They'll never do that. Let the more directly impacted countries foot the bill.
I also didn't hear about any key issues I'd like serious talk about, like our water crisis, our energy situation, infrastructure and the rampant waste this country has, from food waste, energy waste to wasteful spending.
Hopefully they did talk about those, but that's not what I'm hearing this morning on the radio.
Well, I don't support that at all. I think ISIS is a threat, but not enough to warrant sending troops over, especially in this day and age when our military's hands are tied. IF they go in, it should be to WIN and "take no prisoners". They'll never do that. Let the more directly impacted countries foot the bill.
I also didn't hear about any key issues I'd like serious talk about, like our water crisis, our energy situation, infrastructure and the rampant waste this country has, from food waste, energy waste to wasteful spending.
Hopefully they did talk about those, but that's not what I'm hearing this morning on the radio.
|
|
|
Find
|
08-07-2015, 01:15 PM,
|
|
|
|
Posts: 1,393
Threads: 79
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation:
2
|
|
RE: The republican debate
Posts: 1,393
Threads: 79
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation:
2
They didn't talk about any of that because nobody asked about any of that. The questions were all designed to be gotchas and provoke fights. There were looking for fireworks, not answers.
I was actually quite disappointed with Fox.
Not one question to Trump was about anything of substance. All just trying to bring down his poll numbers. I am not a Trump fan or supporter, but seriously, the guy has run huge corporations, can negotiate circles around all of Obama's people, sell ice to Eskimos, and as made Billions of dollars and lost them just so he could make them again because it was so much fun the first time.
Say what you want and yes is a clown, but the dude ain't no slouch. It's worth founding out what he really thinks.
I was actually quite disappointed with Fox.
Not one question to Trump was about anything of substance. All just trying to bring down his poll numbers. I am not a Trump fan or supporter, but seriously, the guy has run huge corporations, can negotiate circles around all of Obama's people, sell ice to Eskimos, and as made Billions of dollars and lost them just so he could make them again because it was so much fun the first time.
Say what you want and yes is a clown, but the dude ain't no slouch. It's worth founding out what he really thinks.
|
|
|
Find
08-07-2015, 04:27 PM,
(This post was last modified: 08-07-2015, 04:34 PM by rwhite135.)
|
|
|
Posts: 607
Threads: 35
Joined: Jan 2015
Reputation:
0
|
|
RE: The republican debate
Posts: 607
Threads: 35
Joined: Jan 2015
Reputation:
0
08-07-2015, 04:27 PM
(This post was last modified: 08-07-2015, 04:34 PM by rwhite135.)
I have a couple points:
1. Luntz didn't ask how many came in supporting Trump. What he asked was how many came in liking Trump. When he later asked who people came in supporting, most of those that had raised their hands about liking him, if not all of them, said that they had come into the debate supporting Rubio, Cruz, Paul, etc. Not one of the people who were asked who they supported prior said Trump. In politics there is a difference between liking and supporting. I like my neighbor who is a Dem but I would never support him in a political run.
2. On more than one occasion Paul looked like an idiot. When he told Christie, who I don't support, that he needed to get a warrant he showed he doesn't know how the warrant process works. To get a warrant you have to show a judge that a reason for it exists. That was Christie's point and Paul showed that he didn't understand it. Christie was right that we should be looking at where phone calls are going. The NSA overstepped when they started not just looking at that but also what was said without the warrant. They also overstepped when they started looking a calls made within the country. To get the warrant you need to link the phone calls to a terrorist on a watch list. By the way, the Patriot Act didn't have to spell that out as that is what the NSA had all ready been doing in regards to "enemy" countries. They just had to expand that to terrorists. Another time he looked like an idiot is when Trump laid out his plan for health care. Trump basically said the same thing that Paul has said in the past about doing away with the ban on interstate health insurance sales and Paul accused him of wanting a single payer right after Trump said otherwise. Like Trump told him, he wasn't listening. Paul also looked like an idiot when he said we can't stop negotiating with terrorists and Iran. When has that ever worked? What I took from that answer was that he would continue Obama's impression of Neville Chamberlain. We absolutely have to fight ISIS with every means at our disposal. To do that we will need to strengthen our military. Like Mike Huckabee said, "The job of the military is to kill and break things." Right now what needs killed and broken is ISIS! Anyone that thinks ISIS isn't a threat hasn't been paying attention to what is going on in the Middle East.
3. I thought Dr. Ben Carson did very well. His point when he was asked about racial tensions, he was the only one asked by the way, was spot on and received the biggest pop of the night from the audience. He also had the best closing statement when he joked about being the only one on the stage not to have stated he was the only one to have done something. He then listed three things that he was the only one to have done, in a joking manner, but those three things are rather impressive. He is the only one to have separated conjoined twins, the only one to have operated on a baby in the mother's womb, and the first to have removed half of a patient's brain, though he did say that looking at Washington someone may have beaten him to it. Dr. Carson was also head of John Hopkins pediatric neurosurgery department, which shows that he does have some leadership ability.
4. Bush neither hurt himself or helped himself. His biggest pop of the night was when he denied the name calling that was reported towards Trump and the latter thanked him for it. Whether the pop was for Trump thanking him or for Bush denying it was hard to tell and may have been about both.
5. Cruz looked very presidential during the debate and his girls were very cute afterwards. Cruz also had one of the best moments of the night when he started to list some descriptions of another candidate running and you could tell from the crowd's reaction that they thought he was talking about Trump. He would end that with the punchline that he was of course talking about Hillary Clinton.
6. Trump was asked gotcha questions and the analysis afterwards when Brit Hume said that there weren't any was BS. Hume has come out attacking Trump recently so I can't really say that I was surprised by that.
7. I was disappointed right from the start when the very first question was if anyone would raise their hand saying that they wouldn't support whoever won the race and would not pledge to not run as an independent. That was clearly a shot at Trump and was designed to make him look bad. The fact is he had already made it clear what his point was on that and it didn't need to be brought up in the way it was. Rand Paul's smart remark about Trump's raising his hand didn't make him look good either. A lot of people, myself included, blame Ron Paul's supporters for Obama getting re-elected. If he wants to lecture someone on that, the senator may want to start in his own backyard.
Coming into the debate I can't say I had a chosen who to support but I was leaning to the following three in this order:
1. Trump
2. Cruz
3. Carson
After the debate that list hasn't changed except to add at #4 Carly Fiorina. She nailed it in the earlier debate. I look for her to make it to the prime time stage for the next debate.
1. Luntz didn't ask how many came in supporting Trump. What he asked was how many came in liking Trump. When he later asked who people came in supporting, most of those that had raised their hands about liking him, if not all of them, said that they had come into the debate supporting Rubio, Cruz, Paul, etc. Not one of the people who were asked who they supported prior said Trump. In politics there is a difference between liking and supporting. I like my neighbor who is a Dem but I would never support him in a political run.
2. On more than one occasion Paul looked like an idiot. When he told Christie, who I don't support, that he needed to get a warrant he showed he doesn't know how the warrant process works. To get a warrant you have to show a judge that a reason for it exists. That was Christie's point and Paul showed that he didn't understand it. Christie was right that we should be looking at where phone calls are going. The NSA overstepped when they started not just looking at that but also what was said without the warrant. They also overstepped when they started looking a calls made within the country. To get the warrant you need to link the phone calls to a terrorist on a watch list. By the way, the Patriot Act didn't have to spell that out as that is what the NSA had all ready been doing in regards to "enemy" countries. They just had to expand that to terrorists. Another time he looked like an idiot is when Trump laid out his plan for health care. Trump basically said the same thing that Paul has said in the past about doing away with the ban on interstate health insurance sales and Paul accused him of wanting a single payer right after Trump said otherwise. Like Trump told him, he wasn't listening. Paul also looked like an idiot when he said we can't stop negotiating with terrorists and Iran. When has that ever worked? What I took from that answer was that he would continue Obama's impression of Neville Chamberlain. We absolutely have to fight ISIS with every means at our disposal. To do that we will need to strengthen our military. Like Mike Huckabee said, "The job of the military is to kill and break things." Right now what needs killed and broken is ISIS! Anyone that thinks ISIS isn't a threat hasn't been paying attention to what is going on in the Middle East.
3. I thought Dr. Ben Carson did very well. His point when he was asked about racial tensions, he was the only one asked by the way, was spot on and received the biggest pop of the night from the audience. He also had the best closing statement when he joked about being the only one on the stage not to have stated he was the only one to have done something. He then listed three things that he was the only one to have done, in a joking manner, but those three things are rather impressive. He is the only one to have separated conjoined twins, the only one to have operated on a baby in the mother's womb, and the first to have removed half of a patient's brain, though he did say that looking at Washington someone may have beaten him to it. Dr. Carson was also head of John Hopkins pediatric neurosurgery department, which shows that he does have some leadership ability.
4. Bush neither hurt himself or helped himself. His biggest pop of the night was when he denied the name calling that was reported towards Trump and the latter thanked him for it. Whether the pop was for Trump thanking him or for Bush denying it was hard to tell and may have been about both.
5. Cruz looked very presidential during the debate and his girls were very cute afterwards. Cruz also had one of the best moments of the night when he started to list some descriptions of another candidate running and you could tell from the crowd's reaction that they thought he was talking about Trump. He would end that with the punchline that he was of course talking about Hillary Clinton.
6. Trump was asked gotcha questions and the analysis afterwards when Brit Hume said that there weren't any was BS. Hume has come out attacking Trump recently so I can't really say that I was surprised by that.
7. I was disappointed right from the start when the very first question was if anyone would raise their hand saying that they wouldn't support whoever won the race and would not pledge to not run as an independent. That was clearly a shot at Trump and was designed to make him look bad. The fact is he had already made it clear what his point was on that and it didn't need to be brought up in the way it was. Rand Paul's smart remark about Trump's raising his hand didn't make him look good either. A lot of people, myself included, blame Ron Paul's supporters for Obama getting re-elected. If he wants to lecture someone on that, the senator may want to start in his own backyard.
Coming into the debate I can't say I had a chosen who to support but I was leaning to the following three in this order:
1. Trump
2. Cruz
3. Carson
After the debate that list hasn't changed except to add at #4 Carly Fiorina. She nailed it in the earlier debate. I look for her to make it to the prime time stage for the next debate.
|
|
|
Find
|
08-07-2015, 05:28 PM,
|
|
|
|
Posts: 1,393
Threads: 79
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation:
2
|
|
RE: The republican debate
Posts: 1,393
Threads: 79
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation:
2
(08-07-2015, 04:27 PM)rwhite135 Wrote: I have a couple points:
1. Luntz didn't ask how many came in supporting Trump.
I was talking about the man in the blue shirt. Second 20 below.
Luntz: "You were a Trump SUPPORTER when you walked in"
Blue Shirt Guy: "Yeah"
So yes, he said supporter.
(08-07-2015, 04:27 PM)rwhite135 Wrote: I have a couple points:
1. Luntz didn't ask how many came in supporting Trump.
I was talking about the man in the blue shirt. Second 20 below.
Luntz: "You were a Trump SUPPORTER when you walked in"
Blue Shirt Guy: "Yeah"
So yes, he said supporter.
|
|
|
Find
|
08-07-2015, 05:34 PM,
|
|
|
|
Posts: 607
Threads: 35
Joined: Jan 2015
Reputation:
0
|
|
RE: The republican debate
Posts: 607
Threads: 35
Joined: Jan 2015
Reputation:
0
Okay, so I missed one... one, lol. Everyone else said they supported someone other than Trump to begin with.
|
|
|
Find
|
08-07-2015, 05:52 PM,
|
|
|
|
Posts: 2,216
Threads: 124
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation:
8
|
|
RE: The republican debate
Posts: 2,216
Threads: 124
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation:
8
I though Paul handled the 4th amendment correctly. A warrant MUST spell out a person of persons. Christie showed he is ignorant on the matter by wanting 'blanket' warrants. This right was included in the Bill of Rights precisely because the English crown would grant Soldiers 'blanket' warrants, specifying entire cities and in some cases states. Paul was only guilty of acting to much like a lawyer. Christie is the clueless one on the process. This is why the SCOTUS ordered Obama to stop storing all phone records and conversations.
Christie response was, like Obama's it's OK to ignore the Constitution and grant the state super police powers.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." -Col. Jeff Cooper
Christie response was, like Obama's it's OK to ignore the Constitution and grant the state super police powers.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." -Col. Jeff Cooper
|
|
|
Find
|
08-07-2015, 10:19 PM,
|
|
|
|
Posts: 607
Threads: 35
Joined: Jan 2015
Reputation:
0
|
|
RE: The republican debate
Posts: 607
Threads: 35
Joined: Jan 2015
Reputation:
0
To get a warrant you have to show a legitimate cause for needing it. If you don't have one it won't be issued. Being able to show through phone records that a call was made to a suspected terroist linked party would be the evidence to get the warrant. Knowing that a person called a certain number isn't the same as listening in on the conversation. Once you have the warrant then the conversations can be tapped. We didn't need the Patriot Act to do this as it was done before that as I said above. Congress had given the NSA the authority to monitor international phone traffic when it was created. The NSA unconstitutionally took it a step further when they started looking at calls made domestically, which isn't even their jurisdiction. Rand Paul did not know this and stuck his foot in his mouth.
|
|
|
Find
|
08-08-2015, 09:32 AM,
|
|
|
|
Posts: 2,216
Threads: 124
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation:
8
|
|
RE: The republican debate
Posts: 2,216
Threads: 124
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation:
8
I disagree... Government collecting all phone records of whom I am speaking is an intrusion on my privacy, as well as collecting evidence without a warrant or my intent to commit a crime. Name me in a warrant and I am fine with it. But collecting information on me without a warrant is a violation of the Bill of Rights. It is equivalent to using a camera to record you 24/7/365 and then reviewing the film to see if any laws were broken, when the police state chooses to do so. And I am OK with international calls being monitored and data collected, as foreign nationals are not covered under our Constitutional rights. But the NSA data has shown that EVERY SINGLE call, text, and email to every citizen in the USA was being collected. That violates the Bill of Rights, no matter the reason. It is equivalent to the 'blanket warrants the English crown used to issue. If you want internal spying, GET a WARRANT.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." -Col. Jeff Cooper
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." -Col. Jeff Cooper
|
|
|
Find
|
08-08-2015, 02:17 PM,
|
|
|
|
Posts: 607
Threads: 35
Joined: Jan 2015
Reputation:
0
|
|
RE: The republican debate
Posts: 607
Threads: 35
Joined: Jan 2015
Reputation:
0
Records they can look at. It's done everyday during investigations. We just covered this last semester in my criminal law class. Where the warrant is needed is when it comes to recording and listening to phone calls themselves. The records of who is called is what is used to get the warrant to do the recording and listening. Rand Paul was wrong when he said a warrant is needed to look at the record of who called who. Keep in mind that I'm not talking about emails or texts just phone calls. There is a totally different set of laws and regulations that come into play with emails and texts. Also keep in mind that I did state above that the NSA overstepped its authority.
|
|
|
Find
|
08-09-2015, 06:54 AM,
|
|
|
|
Posts: 2,216
Threads: 124
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation:
8
|
|
RE: The republican debate
Posts: 2,216
Threads: 124
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation:
8
rwhite, it is not done everyday for everyone. A phone company should demand a warrant before giving up your records without your consent (now mind you in many 'privacy agreements' in force when you become a customer apply). Giving 'blanket access' to all your records without a warrant in not Constitutional. If the government can access all records, films, videos, on you without a warrant privacy disappears. If government wants to spy or investigate every single citizen without a warrant Liberty is dying. Rand Paul is correct, and Chris Christie is dead wrong.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." -Col. Jeff Cooper
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." -Col. Jeff Cooper
|
|
|
Find
|
08-09-2015, 09:14 AM,
|
|
|
|
Posts: 1,393
Threads: 79
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation:
2
|
|
RE: The republican debate
Posts: 1,393
Threads: 79
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation:
2
Remember two things.
1) The British were following the law in 1776, and Hilter was following the law in 1942.
The law gives you the power, it does not give you the right.
2) The Patriot act may have seemed like a fine idea when Bush was President, but not so much under Obama. The rights and powers you surrender do not go to a man, they go to a government.
1) The British were following the law in 1776, and Hilter was following the law in 1942.
The law gives you the power, it does not give you the right.
2) The Patriot act may have seemed like a fine idea when Bush was President, but not so much under Obama. The rights and powers you surrender do not go to a man, they go to a government.
|
|
|
Find
|
08-09-2015, 09:15 AM,
|
|
|
|
Posts: 1,393
Threads: 79
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation:
2
|
|
RE: The republican debate
Posts: 1,393
Threads: 79
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation:
2
(08-09-2015, 09:14 AM)Dutz Wrote: Remember two things.
1) The British were following the law in 1776, and Hilter was following the law in 1942.
The law gives you the power, it does not give you the right.
2) The Patriot act may have seemed like a fine idea when Bush was President, but not so much under Obama. The rights and powers you surrender do not go to a man, they go to a government.
It is ok to trust a man, it is completely idiotic to trust a government.
(08-09-2015, 09:14 AM)Dutz Wrote: Remember two things.
1) The British were following the law in 1776, and Hilter was following the law in 1942.
The law gives you the power, it does not give you the right.
2) The Patriot act may have seemed like a fine idea when Bush was President, but not so much under Obama. The rights and powers you surrender do not go to a man, they go to a government.
It is ok to trust a man, it is completely idiotic to trust a government.
|
|
|
Find
|
08-09-2015, 10:08 AM,
|
|
|
|
Posts: 2,216
Threads: 124
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation:
8
|
|
RE: The republican debate
Posts: 2,216
Threads: 124
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation:
8
Dutz, I opposed the Patriot act under Bush for that very reason! It still violates the Bill of Rights. We are slowly eroding the rights we have fought for since the idea of Freedom and Liberty were formed. Liberty and Freedom cannot co-exist with Socialism/Communism or big government.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." -Col. Jeff Cooper
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." -Col. Jeff Cooper
|
|
|
Find
|
08-09-2015, 02:53 PM,
|
|
|
|
Posts: 607
Threads: 35
Joined: Jan 2015
Reputation:
0
|
|
RE: The republican debate
Posts: 607
Threads: 35
Joined: Jan 2015
Reputation:
0
(08-09-2015, 06:54 AM)BelieveIn308 Wrote: rwhite, it is not done everyday for everyone. A phone company should demand a warrant before giving up your records without your consent (now mind you in many 'privacy agreements' in force when you become a customer apply). Giving 'blanket access' to all your records without a warrant in not Constitutional. If the government can access all records, films, videos, on you without a warrant privacy disappears. If government wants to spy or investigate every single citizen without a warrant Liberty is dying. Rand Paul is correct, and Chris Christie is dead wrong.
The Supreme Court has ruled that it is Constitutional as you have no expectation of privacy. This goes back to when to make a phone call you had to call the operator switch board. The expectation of privacy doesn't come into play until your call actually connects to the party you are calling. The 1979 ruling in the case of Smith v. Maryland conveyed that same idea to numerical dialing conveyed through the phone company's computers. This is why no warrant is needed to look at who was called but is needed to listen in to phone calls. It also needs to be pointed out that you don't legally own your phone records, the phone company does. Even if a warrant would be needed to seize them, the phone company can still willingly surrender them without a warrant. The recent Supreme Court decision on the NSA's spying on phone calls, emails, and texts specifically stated that the government cannot store phone numbers called using their own surveillance and not that they can't look at the phone company's data. Like it or not Rand Paul was wrong when it comes to looking at phone records.
(08-09-2015, 06:54 AM)BelieveIn308 Wrote: rwhite, it is not done everyday for everyone. A phone company should demand a warrant before giving up your records without your consent (now mind you in many 'privacy agreements' in force when you become a customer apply). Giving 'blanket access' to all your records without a warrant in not Constitutional. If the government can access all records, films, videos, on you without a warrant privacy disappears. If government wants to spy or investigate every single citizen without a warrant Liberty is dying. Rand Paul is correct, and Chris Christie is dead wrong.
The Supreme Court has ruled that it is Constitutional as you have no expectation of privacy. This goes back to when to make a phone call you had to call the operator switch board. The expectation of privacy doesn't come into play until your call actually connects to the party you are calling. The 1979 ruling in the case of Smith v. Maryland conveyed that same idea to numerical dialing conveyed through the phone company's computers. This is why no warrant is needed to look at who was called but is needed to listen in to phone calls. It also needs to be pointed out that you don't legally own your phone records, the phone company does. Even if a warrant would be needed to seize them, the phone company can still willingly surrender them without a warrant. The recent Supreme Court decision on the NSA's spying on phone calls, emails, and texts specifically stated that the government cannot store phone numbers called using their own surveillance and not that they can't look at the phone company's data. Like it or not Rand Paul was wrong when it comes to looking at phone records.
|
|
|
Find
|
08-09-2015, 07:54 PM,
|
|
|
|
Posts: 2,216
Threads: 124
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation:
8
|
|
RE: The republican debate
Posts: 2,216
Threads: 124
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation:
8
Well, I don't like it and for that reason alone, I could never vote for Chris Christie. If he is the candidate, then I vote for the Libertarian. I will never vote for a guy that doesn't support the Bill of Rights. And just because the SCOTUS says it is Constitutional, doesn't mean it is. After all if that were the case, Slavery would still exist!
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." -Col. Jeff Cooper
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." -Col. Jeff Cooper
|
|
|
Find
08-09-2015, 08:31 PM,
(This post was last modified: 08-09-2015, 08:32 PM by rwhite135.)
|
|
|
|
Posts: 607
Threads: 35
Joined: Jan 2015
Reputation:
0
|
|
RE: The republican debate
Posts: 607
Threads: 35
Joined: Jan 2015
Reputation:
0
08-09-2015, 08:31 PM
(This post was last modified: 08-09-2015, 08:32 PM by rwhite135.)
Unless there is an amendment made to the Constitution or a new ruling saying otherwise, the SCOTUS saying that it is Constitutional means that it doesn't violate the Bill of Rights. Your slavery example is a perfect one in this regard. It was over-turned by amending the Constitution. BTW, I won't vote for Christie either but I also won't vote for Rand Paul. Like with his father, I feel there is a place for him in government. It's just not sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office.
|
|
|
Find
|
Board
Search
Member List
Calendar
Red Dot Arms
Help
