Liberal Forum

#ShePersisted » 07 Mar 2017 9:24 pm » wrote: Why are you yelling at me?
Sorry. I agree with CP.
You might be okay with the crazy guy with the gun living next door to you.
I am not.

Sorry, not playing your game. That IS not what I am ok with.

You want the crazy guy next to you to not have a gun? Then you have the government take him to court.

Why are you against due process?

Huey » 08 Mar 2017 4:16 am » wrote: Why are you against due process?

You use that phrase a lot.

I do not think it means what you think it means.

Did you know that even in the founders' day, a judge was allowed to sentence people for criminal acts WITHOUT A TRIAL?

I know what you are thinking - EVERYONE is due THAT process. But that is false.

Only those who do not enter a guilty plea are due a trial - all others may be sentenced for their crimes without one.

You are focused on that word "process," and you need to focus on that word, "due."

We are absolutely due certain processes, unless we affirmatively waive those processes.

The government does have to prove you're crazy before finding you so - unless of course they find you so at your request. Yeah - if you TELL them that you're crazy, and ask them to take care of you, part of that care might be disarming you.

If you get better and can take care of YOURSELF, like a big boy, then maybe you can get your guns back?

But here's the good news: No one forces you to go into a government office and insist that you're not competent. That's something you have a say about, and you can just say no.

I know that's a lot to sort and you're not that great a sorter - but you'll get it sorted (hopefully, in lower case letters).

Cannonpointer » 07 Mar 2017 3:16 pm » wrote:THEY are the ones saying they're incompetent.

The SSA is merely taking their word for it, entitlement breath.

Here I am defending against government intervention in peoples' lives, and here you are **** with me over that. You get loonier by the day, I swear.

Is it the drugs or what?

Huey » 08 Mar 2017 4:16 am » wrote: Sorry, not playing your game. That IS not what I am ok with.

You want the crazy guy next to you to not have a gun? Then you have the government take him to court.

Why are you against due process?

Cannonpointer » 08 Mar 2017 4:29 am » wrote:You use that phrase a lot.

I do not think it means what you think it means.

Did you know that even in the founders' day, a judge was allowed to sentence people for criminal acts WITHOUT A TRIAL?

I know what you are thinking - EVERYONE is due THAT process. But that is false.

Only those who do not enter a guilty plea are due a trial - all others may be sentenced for their crimes without one.

You are focused on that word "process," and you need to focus on that word, "due."

We are absolutely due certain processes, unless we affirmatively waive those processes.

The government does have to prove you're crazy before finding you so - unless of course they find you so at your request. Yeah - if you TELL them that you're crazy, and ask them to take care of you, part of that care might be disarming you.

If you get better and can take care of YOURSELF, like a big boy, then maybe you can get your guns back?

But here's the good news: No one forces you to go into a government office and insist that you're not competent. That's something you have a say about, and you can just say no.

I know that's a lot to sort and you're not that great a sorter - but you'll get it sorted (hopefully, in lower case letters).

So again this boils down to a President using a pen and a phone to remove a persons rights.

Why is this any difference than being placed on the no fly list without a day in court?

That's all I am asking. The government should have have to make a case in court before removing ANY of your rights.

Huey » 08 Mar 2017 5:43 am » wrote: Why is this any difference than being placed on the no fly list without a day in court?

That's all I am asking.

This is you signing up for the no fly list.

The citizen, not the government, is pushing the action, declaring the incompetence, asking to be cared for as a child. Adult rights are for those who embrace adult responsibilities - not for those on the dole.

I also favor unisex poor houses with curfews and strict rules. If you cannot support yourself you have no business taking a chance on procreating. You're not ready to date until you can support yourself - or drink, gamble, what have you.

larryc12 » 08 Mar 2017 5:36 am » wrote: Here I am defending against government intervention in peoples' lives, and here you are **** with me over that. You get loonier by the day, I swear.

Is it the drugs or what?

Are you suggesting that I'm habitually oppositional? I'll kick your *** if you are.

larryc12 » 08 Mar 2017 5:36 am » wrote: government intervention in peoples' lives,

These people are intervening in government's life.

They need an uncle - let them have one.

Termin8tor » 07 Mar 2017 11:23 pm » wrote: It really is difficult to prevent Obama's attempt to bankrupt the country by getting many more millions of Americans hooked on Entitlements, but the replacement bill for all its problems is far superior to Obama's collapsing, snicker, "Signature Achievement."
If they think Trump should be or could be impeached for his claim about Obama, they're now playing with lots of cards missing from their decks.

I know enough about politics and the Constitution to know their claim is utterly absurd.

The far left is clutching at thin air in their ignorant foolish belief about impeachment. Biggest issue is the House is Republican!!!

Cannonpointer » 08 Mar 2017 6:50 am » wrote:This is you signing up for the no fly list.

The citizen, not the government, is pushing the action, declaring the incompetence, asking to be cared for as a child. Adult rights are for those who embrace adult responsibilities - not for those on the dole.

I also favor unisex poor houses with curfews and strict rules. If you cannot support yourself you have no business taking a chance on procreating. You're not ready to date until you can support yourself - or drink, gamble, what have you.

There are many things the citizenry want the federal government to do that the fed government should not be doing. You argue about this yourself. All I am saying is that if you want government to remove a right, a freedom, the court system should be involved. Not the SSA sending names to the FBI.

Huey » 08 Mar 2017 7:11 am » wrote: There are many things the citizenry want the federal government to do that the fed government should not be doing. You argue about this yourself. All I am saying is that if you want government to remove a right, a freedom, the court system should be involved. Not the SSA sending names to the FBI.

Oh, I agree that my purism on this issue is inconsistent with my more nuanced posting history in the arena of federal over-reach and citizens' rights. I know that I don't always take this rigid a stand when it comes to those who receive entitlements, for example. I'd never say a guy whose handicap is physical should lose his right to own a gun (unless that physical disability included an inability to control one's trigger finger).

It's probably part of the very unfortunate history of bigotry in this nation, which we must all help combat, against the mentally challenged/menatally-differently-abled/mentally-unique. But unless you agree that mentally-differently-abled kids should be "mainlined" and educated cheek by jowl with your human children, the same can be said of you.

Don't forget that you are talking to a man who holds multiple patents, including the patent on the monkey-pistol. I know from personal and painful experience the folly of assuming just any animal should be a given gun.

One's right to own a weapon - we will both agree - can be lost by robbing banks and being incarcerated. But I will go one farther and say that the combination of five or more tattoos with a man bun, self-avowed mental incompetence, and a script for happy pills, should be enough to say,"Tell ya what, snowflake - no pow pow for you until you come out of your safe space, put down the latte, put on your big boy pants, and get a **** job - and NO! - the novel you are writing is NOT your job."

Cannonpointer » 08 Mar 2017 11:48 am » wrote:Oh, I agree that my purism on this issue is inconsistent with my more nuanced posting history in the arena of federal over-reach and citizens' rights. I know that I don't always take this rigid a stand when it comes to those who receive entitlements, for example. I'd never say a guy whose handicap is physical should lose his right to own a gun (unless that physical disability included an inability to control one's trigger finger).

It's probably part of the very unfortunate history of bigotry in this nation, which we must all help combat, against the mentally challenged/menatally-differently-abled/mentally-unique. But unless you agree that mentally-differently-abled kids should be "mainlined" and educated cheek by jowl with your human children, the same can be said of you.

Don't forget that you are talking to a man who holds multiple patents, including the patent on the monkey-pistol. I know from personal and painful experience the folly of assuming just any animal should be a given gun.

One's right to own a weapon - we will both agree - can be lost by robbing banks and being incarcerated. But I will go one farther and say that the combination of five or more tattoos with a man bun, self-avowed mental incompetence, and a script for happy pills, should be enough to say,"Tell ya what, snowflake - no pow pow for you until you come out of your safe space, put down the latte, put on your big boy pants, and get a **** job - and NO! - the novel you are writing is NOT your job."

I am not disagreeing with you that there are those who should not own guns. But as in the case of one who is incarcerated for robbing banks they did appear before a court. That is all I am saying. If the government feels someone is mentally, or physically as you mention, incapable of safely operating gun let it go before a judge. But having the SSA send names to the FBI and that is the end of it, all thru executive action, is what I am against.

President Trump Will Not Correct False Tweet About Obama’s Guantanamo Detainees

#ShePersisted » 08 Mar 2017 12:50 pm » wrote:

President Trump Will Not Correct False Tweet About Obama’s Guantanamo Detainees

Oh well. At least they can keep their doctors if they like them and their average family will save 2400 bucks a year on healthcare costs.

Bipartisan group of senators ask Justice Department for warrant on Trump Tower wiretapping

Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) are requesting the Justice Department and FBI hand over any potential application for a warrant to wiretap the Trump campaign.

"We request that the Department of Justice provide us copies of any warrant applications and court orders ... related to wiretaps of President Trump, the Trump Campaign, or Trump Tower," the two senators wrote in a letter to Dana Boente, the acting deputy attorney general, and FBI Director James Comey.

The request comes after President Trump claimed on Saturday, without offering any evidence, that former President Barack Obama had ordered a wiretap on his campaign.

The senators added that once they are able to review a warrant request or any potential court orders they would "proceed as appropriate with the oversight the President has requested.”

So what will they do if they find that there was no such warrant request?

#ShePersisted » 08 Mar 2017 12:59 pm » wrote: So what will they do if they find that there was no such warrant request?

Then somebody in the Obama Administration has been lying their *** off since last year.

Huey » 08 Mar 2017 12:54 pm » wrote: Oh well. At least they can keep their doctors if they like them and their average family will save 2400 bucks a year on healthcare costs.

People who try to draw a moral equivalence between the amount of lies told by any previous POTUS and this one are either being dishonest or they are willfully ignorant.

Just because a former POTUS may have said something that turned out not to be true, that does not excuse the constant lying of the current POTUS.

How about this Huey......
You post a list of Obama's lies and I'll post a list of Trump's lies and let's see which list is longer.


Trump said he's going to replace the ACA with something much better and cheaper and that EVERYONE will be covered.
Let's see if that turns out to be true.

Huey » 08 Mar 2017 1:01 pm » wrote:Then somebody in the Obama Administration has been lying their *** off since last year.

Oh. Silly me.
I thought it would mean that Trump was lying his *** off when he accused Obama and by implication the FBI/DOJ of conspiring to commit a Watergate level felony.

#ShePersisted » 08 Mar 2017 1:07 pm » wrote: People who try to draw a moral equivalence between the amount of lies told by any previous POTUS and this one are either being dishonest or they are willfully ignorant.

Just because a former POTUS may have said something that turned out not to be true, that does not excuse the constant lying of the current POTUS.

How about this Huey......
You post a list of Obama's lies and I'll post a list of Trump's lies and let's see which list is longer.

Trump said he's going to replace the ACA with something much better and cheaper and that EVERYONE will be covered.
Let's see if that turns out to be true.

I am looking at the importance and gravity of the lie compared to the what you have posted on trump. I am also LMMFAO at those bitching about Trump Lies when they were silent on this forum for the 5 years or so I have posted here.

I forgot. If you like your plan you can keep it!

This lie you are complaining about with trump pales in comparison to the effect those Obama lies had on millions of Americans who lost their plan, their doctor, and had an increase of $2400.

#ShePersisted » 08 Mar 2017 1:17 pm » wrote: Oh. Silly me.
I thought it would mean that Trump was lying his *** off when he accused Obama and by implication the FBI/DOJ of conspiring to commit a Watergate level felony.

Misty, it has been reported since at least prior to the election that these FISA warrants were requested. Remember all those articles I posted for you, that you didn't read? Check the dates. Either the MSM is lying or the leakers under the previous administration are lying.

Keep in mind misty that all FISA warrant requests go thru the AG.

So tell us misty, who is lying? The MSM or the leakers?

So yes, silly you.

But keep trying. Someday you might shot gun some **** that actually sticks to trump.

Can you answer this misty? I can't.

Huey » 07 Mar 2017 5:48 am » wrote:Clapper says there was no FISA warrant. The MSM, from the NY Times to the Guardian to McClatchy to networks have been reporting that FISA requests, wiretaps, etc have been used on trump campaign staff and Trump towers. Who is telling the truth? Clapper has lied before but the MSM is guilty of "FAKE" news.