Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
"Patrol and Secure"
Author Message
HeartOfDixie Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,689
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 945
I Root For: Alabama
Location: Huntsville AL
Post: #61
RE: "Patrol and Secure"
(03-24-2016 02:19 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  [Image: 250062_10153576944546275_169509517721405...e=574F7035]

Are the complexion of the figures not interesting to you? Their rosey red cheeks and all are interesting to me.
03-24-2016 02:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Redwingtom Offline
Progressive filth
*

Posts: 51,506
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 968
I Root For: B-G-S-U !!!!
Location: Soros' Basement
Post: #62
RE: "Patrol and Secure"
(03-24-2016 02:24 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  
(03-24-2016 02:19 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  [Image: 250062_10153576944546275_169509517721405...e=574F7035]

Are the complexion of the figures not interesting to you? Their rosey red cheeks and all are interesting to me.

Eh...but it does speak to the fact that being Muslim is a religion, and not an ethnicity. And spotting them by just their looks might be a tad problematic.
03-24-2016 02:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HeartOfDixie Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,689
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 945
I Root For: Alabama
Location: Huntsville AL
Post: #63
RE: "Patrol and Secure"
(03-24-2016 02:28 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  
(03-24-2016 02:24 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  
(03-24-2016 02:19 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  [Image: 250062_10153576944546275_169509517721405...e=574F7035]

Are the complexion of the figures not interesting to you? Their rosey red cheeks and all are interesting to me.

Eh...but it does speak to the fact that being Muslim is a religion, and not an ethnicity. And spotting them by just their looks might be a tad problematic.

It's a subtle attempt to steer perception in my opinion.

If the cartoon were any more accurate it would undermine the message, which is the sign of a weak message.
03-24-2016 02:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
olliebaba Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 28,100
Joined: Jul 2007
Reputation: 2149
I Root For: Christ
Location: El Paso
Post: #64
RE: "Patrol and Secure"
(03-24-2016 10:08 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  
(03-24-2016 09:55 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  
(03-23-2016 02:43 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  But you see, that IS the problem. Candidates are specific on what they meant so ignorant, uneducated people repeat the same thing and take it to heart. So you no longer have people saying that they want to stop terrorism but instead ban all Muslims. Or they no longer say they want to secure the border but instead say stop all immigration.

So the blame isn't on average Americans who know what they meant and played the gotcha game. The blame is on the candidates themselves for not being specific and on their supporters for spreading that none specific nonsense.

Don't pretend for a minute that they don't do it on purpose either.

I know you think so and there are certainly examples... but this isn't one of them. Follow me for a minute.

I've quoted for you where Cruz actually WAS specific. Before the comment in the OP, he spoke of 'isolated, radical' areas where there is a higher incidence of 'radical terrorism'. The press and people with agendas against Cruz generally leaves those comments off... and simply focus on the one in the OP. Even President Obama engaged in it, accusing Cruz of calling for the sort of 'monitoring' that took place in communist Cuba under Castro... which isn't remotely what Cruz was talking about, unless Cuba only monitored isolated places where terrorism was occurring. More to the point, Cruz also compared it specifically to the higher police presence and monitoring of areas controlled by gangs... which is obviously done under the Obama administration... and when he was a Congressman and 'community activist'.

Obama himself (with the help of the media) has created an image where Cruz was talking about simply monitoring all Muslims, which ISN'T AT ALL what he said... and only someone with an agenda would read it that way.

Yes, Racists have an agenda so they heard what they wanted to hear as well... but it CLEARLY isn't what Cruz was implying.

Although I've picked this one incidence, I don't claim that Cruz hasn't done it to Obama or Hillary or Trump or anyone else himself... I'm just saying that it's shameful. Yes, I could blame the candidates... but they're only doing what it takes to win an election. You can run a clean campaign and lose or you can 'play the game' and win. The reason they 'play the game' is because WE buy it. Obama isn't running for office.... I'm painting him very clearly as someone more interested in 'his team' winning than in truth or fairness or anything else. An example of my comment that 'the ends justify the means'.

I blame us because politicians (and the media) would stop if it didn't work. I don't care if you heard what you wanted to hear and I heard something else... Honest people can disagree... I care that people whose jobs it should be to be unbiased (the media) and people whose jobs it should be to be honest with their constituents (politicians) 'WIN' (with us) by being biased and lying to us.

I guess you are right. I'll admit that I am to blame for hearing what I want to hear and saying what I want to say to help our team.

I have often said that politics is like watching sports. Perhaps I should stop seeing it that way.

In my defense however, I stopped believing long ago that anything I said or how I voted made any sort of difference a long, long time ago.


Oh wow! I've finally met the Fit Whisperer.
03-24-2016 02:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 40,278
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1284
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #65
RE: "Patrol and Secure"
(03-24-2016 11:51 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Patrolling neighborhoods isn't something the Federal Government needs to be doing anything about, empowering or otherwise.

For all of Ted's comments about the Constitution he sure has no problems ignoring it when there are political points to potentially be scored.

The Federal government already does this... and by and large I'd have to say that 'terrorism' (especially international terrorism)is far more of a 'federal' issue than is gang violence or even drugs (though I realize many drugs cross the border)

I'd agree that the feds shouldn't be doing this, but it seems self-evident (because it's been going on for decades) that it's not a Constitutional problem.

Don't misunderstand me... I think it's wrong... but it's 'less wrong' than lots of things we already do.
(This post was last modified: 03-24-2016 03:15 PM by Hambone10.)
03-24-2016 03:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fitbud Offline
Banned

Posts: 30,983
Joined: Dec 2011
I Root For: PAC 12
Location:
Post: #66
RE: "Patrol and Secure"
(03-24-2016 02:55 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  
(03-24-2016 10:08 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  
(03-24-2016 09:55 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  
(03-23-2016 02:43 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  But you see, that IS the problem. Candidates are specific on what they meant so ignorant, uneducated people repeat the same thing and take it to heart. So you no longer have people saying that they want to stop terrorism but instead ban all Muslims. Or they no longer say they want to secure the border but instead say stop all immigration.

So the blame isn't on average Americans who know what they meant and played the gotcha game. The blame is on the candidates themselves for not being specific and on their supporters for spreading that none specific nonsense.

Don't pretend for a minute that they don't do it on purpose either.

I know you think so and there are certainly examples... but this isn't one of them. Follow me for a minute.

I've quoted for you where Cruz actually WAS specific. Before the comment in the OP, he spoke of 'isolated, radical' areas where there is a higher incidence of 'radical terrorism'. The press and people with agendas against Cruz generally leaves those comments off... and simply focus on the one in the OP. Even President Obama engaged in it, accusing Cruz of calling for the sort of 'monitoring' that took place in communist Cuba under Castro... which isn't remotely what Cruz was talking about, unless Cuba only monitored isolated places where terrorism was occurring. More to the point, Cruz also compared it specifically to the higher police presence and monitoring of areas controlled by gangs... which is obviously done under the Obama administration... and when he was a Congressman and 'community activist'.

Obama himself (with the help of the media) has created an image where Cruz was talking about simply monitoring all Muslims, which ISN'T AT ALL what he said... and only someone with an agenda would read it that way.

Yes, Racists have an agenda so they heard what they wanted to hear as well... but it CLEARLY isn't what Cruz was implying.

Although I've picked this one incidence, I don't claim that Cruz hasn't done it to Obama or Hillary or Trump or anyone else himself... I'm just saying that it's shameful. Yes, I could blame the candidates... but they're only doing what it takes to win an election. You can run a clean campaign and lose or you can 'play the game' and win. The reason they 'play the game' is because WE buy it. Obama isn't running for office.... I'm painting him very clearly as someone more interested in 'his team' winning than in truth or fairness or anything else. An example of my comment that 'the ends justify the means'.

I blame us because politicians (and the media) would stop if it didn't work. I don't care if you heard what you wanted to hear and I heard something else... Honest people can disagree... I care that people whose jobs it should be to be unbiased (the media) and people whose jobs it should be to be honest with their constituents (politicians) 'WIN' (with us) by being biased and lying to us.

I guess you are right. I'll admit that I am to blame for hearing what I want to hear and saying what I want to say to help our team.

I have often said that politics is like watching sports. Perhaps I should stop seeing it that way.

In my defense however, I stopped believing long ago that anything I said or how I voted made any sort of difference a long, long time ago.


Oh wow! I've finally met the Fit Whisperer.

Hambone10 makes too much sense. I can't argue with him. 01-ncaabbs01-ncaabbs01-ncaabbs01-ncaabbs01-ncaabbs01-ncaabbs01-ncaabbs
03-24-2016 03:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NIU007 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 34,240
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 315
I Root For: NIU, MAC
Location: Naperville, IL
Post: #67
RE: "Patrol and Secure"
I'm still confused on what Cruz is actually suggesting.
03-24-2016 03:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Redwingtom Offline
Progressive filth
*

Posts: 51,506
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 968
I Root For: B-G-S-U !!!!
Location: Soros' Basement
Post: #68
RE: "Patrol and Secure"
(03-24-2016 03:54 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I'm still confused on what Cruz is actually suggesting.

Probably because he doesn't even know what he's suggesting. All he keeps babbling about was what New York did. And even they *****-slapped him. Not to mention, the New York program was an unmitigated disaster!

Quote:But the NYPD program was not a success. In a 2012 deposition, an assistant chief of the NYPD admitted that over six years the program had not led to a single terrorism lead or investigation, let alone any convictions.

A 2013 cover story in New York Magazine quoted NYPD Lieutenant Hector Berdecia, a former supervisor in the program. He damningly described how it involved paying undercover officers to sit in cafes frequented by Muslims, drinking tea and eating sweets at taxpayer expense, generating no useful intelligence to protect New Yorkers or fuel prosecutions.
Ted Cruz says an NYPD program was a 'successful' model for Muslim surveillance — but it was useless

Don't forget, this is the same fool that suggested carpet bombing. He's a foreign policy disaster waiting to happen.
(This post was last modified: 03-24-2016 04:06 PM by Redwingtom.)
03-24-2016 04:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NIU007 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 34,240
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 315
I Root For: NIU, MAC
Location: Naperville, IL
Post: #69
RE: "Patrol and Secure"
(03-24-2016 04:05 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  
(03-24-2016 03:54 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I'm still confused on what Cruz is actually suggesting.

Probably because he doesn't even know what he's suggesting. All he keeps babbling about was what New York did. And even they *****-slapped him. Not to mention, the New York program was an unmitigated disaster!

Quote:But the NYPD program was not a success. In a 2012 deposition, an assistant chief of the NYPD admitted that over six years the program had not led to a single terrorism lead or investigation, let alone any convictions.

A 2013 cover story in New York Magazine quoted NYPD Lieutenant Hector Berdecia, a former supervisor in the program. He damningly described how it involved paying undercover officers to sit in cafes frequented by Muslims, drinking tea and eating sweets at taxpayer expense, generating no useful intelligence to protect New Yorkers or fuel prosecutions.
Ted Cruz says an NYPD program was a 'successful' model for Muslim surveillance — but it was useless

Don't forget, this is the same fool that suggested carpet bombing. He's a foreign policy disaster waiting to happen.

I will say, that listening in like that, I have no problem with. And even doing it for a while. But if it didn't come to anything, using it as an example of something that we need more of is dumb. The mosques, I believe, is where you'd have to be. If you don't find imams preaching violence, then there's nothing there.
(This post was last modified: 03-24-2016 04:10 PM by NIU007.)
03-24-2016 04:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
200yrs2late Offline
Resident Parrothead
*

Posts: 15,328
Joined: Jan 2010
Reputation: 767
I Root For: East Carolina
Location: SE of disorder
Post: #70
RE: "Patrol and Secure"
(03-24-2016 04:05 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  
(03-24-2016 03:54 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I'm still confused on what Cruz is actually suggesting.

Probably because he doesn't even know what he's suggesting. All he keeps babbling about was what New York did. And even they *****-slapped him. Not to mention, the New York program was an unmitigated disaster!

Quote:But the NYPD program was not a success. In a 2012 deposition, an assistant chief of the NYPD admitted that over six years the program had not led to a single terrorism lead or investigation, let alone any convictions.

A 2013 cover story in New York Magazine quoted NYPD Lieutenant Hector Berdecia, a former supervisor in the program. He damningly described how it involved paying undercover officers to sit in cafes frequented by Muslims, drinking tea and eating sweets at taxpayer expense, generating no useful intelligence to protect New Yorkers or fuel prosecutions.
Ted Cruz says an NYPD program was a 'successful' model for Muslim surveillance — but it was useless

Don't forget, this is the same fool that suggested carpet bombing. He's a foreign policy disaster waiting to happen.

How many successful terrorist attacks occurred in NY during the program?
03-24-2016 04:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NIU007 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 34,240
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 315
I Root For: NIU, MAC
Location: Naperville, IL
Post: #71
RE: "Patrol and Secure"
(03-24-2016 04:10 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  
(03-24-2016 04:05 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  
(03-24-2016 03:54 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I'm still confused on what Cruz is actually suggesting.

Probably because he doesn't even know what he's suggesting. All he keeps babbling about was what New York did. And even they *****-slapped him. Not to mention, the New York program was an unmitigated disaster!

Quote:But the NYPD program was not a success. In a 2012 deposition, an assistant chief of the NYPD admitted that over six years the program had not led to a single terrorism lead or investigation, let alone any convictions.

A 2013 cover story in New York Magazine quoted NYPD Lieutenant Hector Berdecia, a former supervisor in the program. He damningly described how it involved paying undercover officers to sit in cafes frequented by Muslims, drinking tea and eating sweets at taxpayer expense, generating no useful intelligence to protect New Yorkers or fuel prosecutions.
Ted Cruz says an NYPD program was a 'successful' model for Muslim surveillance — but it was useless

Don't forget, this is the same fool that suggested carpet bombing. He's a foreign policy disaster waiting to happen.

How many successful terrorist attacks occurred in NY during the program?

There were no famines and droughts either, but that wasn't because they were listening in to conversations. If there were attacks, that would imply more of a need for the program than what actually happened.
(This post was last modified: 03-24-2016 04:14 PM by NIU007.)
03-24-2016 04:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Redwingtom Offline
Progressive filth
*

Posts: 51,506
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 968
I Root For: B-G-S-U !!!!
Location: Soros' Basement
Post: #72
RE: "Patrol and Secure"
(03-24-2016 04:10 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  
(03-24-2016 04:05 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  
(03-24-2016 03:54 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I'm still confused on what Cruz is actually suggesting.

Probably because he doesn't even know what he's suggesting. All he keeps babbling about was what New York did. And even they *****-slapped him. Not to mention, the New York program was an unmitigated disaster!

Quote:But the NYPD program was not a success. In a 2012 deposition, an assistant chief of the NYPD admitted that over six years the program had not led to a single terrorism lead or investigation, let alone any convictions.

A 2013 cover story in New York Magazine quoted NYPD Lieutenant Hector Berdecia, a former supervisor in the program. He damningly described how it involved paying undercover officers to sit in cafes frequented by Muslims, drinking tea and eating sweets at taxpayer expense, generating no useful intelligence to protect New Yorkers or fuel prosecutions.
Ted Cruz says an NYPD program was a 'successful' model for Muslim surveillance — but it was useless

Don't forget, this is the same fool that suggested carpet bombing. He's a foreign policy disaster waiting to happen.

How many successful terrorist attacks occurred in NY during the program?

Meaningless, you cannot draw those conclusions...and you know that.

Also,
Quote:There were some bona-fide terror threats in New York during the program's existence. In 2009, for instance, the National Security Agency sought the NYPD's help in investigating Najibullah Zazi, who later pleaded guilty to involvement in a plot to bomb New York's subways.

But the NYPD's surveillance efforts produced no useful information to offer the NSA, even though surveillance officers "had canvassed Zazi’s neighborhood daily, and had even visited the travel agent where he bought his tickets between New York and Colorado," wrote Apuzzo and Goldman.
03-24-2016 04:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
200yrs2late Offline
Resident Parrothead
*

Posts: 15,328
Joined: Jan 2010
Reputation: 767
I Root For: East Carolina
Location: SE of disorder
Post: #73
RE: "Patrol and Secure"
(03-24-2016 04:12 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  
(03-24-2016 04:10 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  
(03-24-2016 04:05 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  
(03-24-2016 03:54 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I'm still confused on what Cruz is actually suggesting.

Probably because he doesn't even know what he's suggesting. All he keeps babbling about was what New York did. And even they *****-slapped him. Not to mention, the New York program was an unmitigated disaster!

Quote:But the NYPD program was not a success. In a 2012 deposition, an assistant chief of the NYPD admitted that over six years the program had not led to a single terrorism lead or investigation, let alone any convictions.

A 2013 cover story in New York Magazine quoted NYPD Lieutenant Hector Berdecia, a former supervisor in the program. He damningly described how it involved paying undercover officers to sit in cafes frequented by Muslims, drinking tea and eating sweets at taxpayer expense, generating no useful intelligence to protect New Yorkers or fuel prosecutions.
Ted Cruz says an NYPD program was a 'successful' model for Muslim surveillance — but it was useless

Don't forget, this is the same fool that suggested carpet bombing. He's a foreign policy disaster waiting to happen.

How many successful terrorist attacks occurred in NY during the program?

There were no famines and droughts either, but that wasn't because they were listening in to conversations.

Just saying. Surveillance can be a deterrence.
03-24-2016 04:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
200yrs2late Offline
Resident Parrothead
*

Posts: 15,328
Joined: Jan 2010
Reputation: 767
I Root For: East Carolina
Location: SE of disorder
Post: #74
RE: "Patrol and Secure"
The program ended in 2014. There was a successful Islamic terrorist attack in nyc in late 2014. A direct correlation? Maybe not, but maybe.
03-24-2016 04:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NIU007 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 34,240
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 315
I Root For: NIU, MAC
Location: Naperville, IL
Post: #75
RE: "Patrol and Secure"
(03-24-2016 04:14 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  
(03-24-2016 04:12 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  
(03-24-2016 04:10 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  
(03-24-2016 04:05 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  
(03-24-2016 03:54 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I'm still confused on what Cruz is actually suggesting.

Probably because he doesn't even know what he's suggesting. All he keeps babbling about was what New York did. And even they *****-slapped him. Not to mention, the New York program was an unmitigated disaster!

Quote:But the NYPD program was not a success. In a 2012 deposition, an assistant chief of the NYPD admitted that over six years the program had not led to a single terrorism lead or investigation, let alone any convictions.

A 2013 cover story in New York Magazine quoted NYPD Lieutenant Hector Berdecia, a former supervisor in the program. He damningly described how it involved paying undercover officers to sit in cafes frequented by Muslims, drinking tea and eating sweets at taxpayer expense, generating no useful intelligence to protect New Yorkers or fuel prosecutions.
Ted Cruz says an NYPD program was a 'successful' model for Muslim surveillance — but it was useless

Don't forget, this is the same fool that suggested carpet bombing. He's a foreign policy disaster waiting to happen.

How many successful terrorist attacks occurred in NY during the program?

There were no famines and droughts either, but that wasn't because they were listening in to conversations.

Just saying. Surveillance can be a deterrence.

In this case, they were undercover though, so no deterrence. If they were doing obvious surveillance also, then maybe. That doesn't seem like it would be enough to stop these kind of people though.
(This post was last modified: 03-24-2016 04:24 PM by NIU007.)
03-24-2016 04:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HeartOfDixie Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,689
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 945
I Root For: Alabama
Location: Huntsville AL
Post: #76
RE: "Patrol and Secure"
(03-24-2016 03:14 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  
(03-24-2016 11:51 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Patrolling neighborhoods isn't something the Federal Government needs to be doing anything about, empowering or otherwise.

For all of Ted's comments about the Constitution he sure has no problems ignoring it when there are political points to potentially be scored.

The Federal government already does this... and by and large I'd have to say that 'terrorism' (especially international terrorism)is far more of a 'federal' issue than is gang violence or even drugs (though I realize many drugs cross the border)

I'd agree that the feds shouldn't be doing this, but it seems self-evident (because it's been going on for decades) that it's not a Constitutional problem.

Don't misunderstand me... I think it's wrong... but it's 'less wrong' than lots of things we already do.

Just because a constitutional overreach is ignored does not mean it shouldn't be pointed out.

The criticism of Ted remains valid. For a Constitutionalist he sure seems to be picking and choosing, especially with this.
03-24-2016 05:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 40,278
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1284
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #77
RE: "Patrol and Secure"
(03-24-2016 05:48 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Just because a constitutional overreach is ignored does not mean it shouldn't be pointed out.

The criticism of Ted remains valid. For a Constitutionalist he sure seems to be picking and choosing, especially with this.

Don't disagree... I just know that most people who complaint about Cruz vis a vis the Constitution are not 'libertarians', but are instead 'democrats' who have no problem with an over-reaching government, except when directed by someone other than their candidate... and I'm trying to make sure that your point (as I understand it) is clear... that your disagreement is more from a libertarian/small government standpoint than from a 'he's calling for something other Presidents haven't'.
03-24-2016 06:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HeartOfDixie Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,689
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 945
I Root For: Alabama
Location: Huntsville AL
Post: #78
RE: "Patrol and Secure"
(03-24-2016 06:21 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  
(03-24-2016 05:48 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Just because a constitutional overreach is ignored does not mean it shouldn't be pointed out.

The criticism of Ted remains valid. For a Constitutionalist he sure seems to be picking and choosing, especially with this.

Don't disagree... I just know that most people who complaint about Cruz vis a vis the Constitution are not 'libertarians', but are instead 'democrats' who have no problem with an over-reaching government, except when directed by someone other than their candidate... and I'm trying to make sure that your point (as I understand it) is clear... that your disagreement is more from a libertarian/small government standpoint than from a 'he's calling for something other Presidents haven't'.

Yes, that's it. It, to me, calls into question his Constitutionalist claims when he so flippantly casts them aside on something that is very much a constitutional issue.
03-24-2016 06:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
blunderbuss Offline
Banned

Posts: 19,649
Joined: Apr 2011
I Root For: ECU & the CSA
Location: Buzz City, NC
Post: #79
RE: "Patrol and Secure"
(03-24-2016 11:23 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  
(03-24-2016 11:20 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  
(03-23-2016 12:05 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  
(03-23-2016 11:58 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Put the breaks on all immigration.

That is exactly the kind o knee jerk reactions that republicans have that is so ignorant and off putting.

Immigration does not exist for other nations. It exists to enhance and improve america. We see in Europe when you treat citizenship or residence in your nation as a human right to be bestowed to people who have no respect for actual human rights.

You are being naive if you think immigration can be stopped. The only way you can stop it is by becoming a nation so vile, that people want to leave.
Or by shooting illegals at the border.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk
03-24-2016 06:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
blunderbuss Offline
Banned

Posts: 19,649
Joined: Apr 2011
I Root For: ECU & the CSA
Location: Buzz City, NC
Post: #80
RE: "Patrol and Secure"
(03-24-2016 11:51 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Patrolling neighborhoods isn't something the Federal Government needs to be doing anything about, empowering or otherwise.

For all of Ted's comments about the Constitution he sure has no problems ignoring it when there are political points to potentially be scored.

Good point, actually.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk
03-24-2016 06:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.