If You Weren't Certain Before.....

[beagle9]

Wasn't talking about law abiding citizen's guns.

If you haven't been convicted of anything there is no way to determine that. That's also how "red flag" laws work.

You support them, obviously, right?

If you haven't been convicted of anything, then you are law abiding. We aren't in the assumption business, but we can be in the preventive business to a certain degree. If a person is showing proof of a will to do violent thing's to other innocent people, and to do it with any weapon of choice, be it with a knife, vehicle, gun or whatever, and we know this by threats the person is making, then yes we should be pro-active in trying to thwart that person from being able to commit or carry out such threats being made after making them.

It depends on who is writing the laws, and who they are writing them for these days, in which determines whether or not the intent behind the laws are good or bad. Laws written for political reason's are generally going to be bad, because they could be written in order to obtain an outcome that has nothing to do with actual justice being sought after in the law. People have got to be smart enough to know the difference's or we won't have a functioning republic anymore.

O.K. so you are on record in support of removing the rights of people without due process.

Nice try leftist, but if you commit a crime as in threatening someone's life with bodily harm, then your rights upon prosecution of that crime have ended until time is served or a rehibilitation process has been fully completed after sentencing.

That isn't what Trump said. He said he would take a persons guns and ask questions later. No proof any crime was committed. Only accusations. No due process, only accusations. This is what you are supporting and you call me a "leftists"? Really?

Red flag laws can take a persons guns despite them not breaking any laws. Is this what you support because Trump has said he does.

Trump backs 'red flag' gun laws. What do they actually do? - CNNPolitics

You see, this is how you leftist roll. You listen and you listen until you THINK that you hear something that you can misconstrue or use, and then you pounce on hopes that the ignorant will take your bait Hook line and sinker. People are not as ignorant as you wish them to be, so just understand that, and then there might be hope for you changing in your attitudes and in your understanding yet.

Trump backs 'red flag' gun laws. What do they actually do? - CNNPolitics

What did I mishear?

Trump is for no such thing, and you are attempting to twist his intent and his words to fit your agenda which is to battle Trump at every turn (leftist).

 

[PoliticalChic]

Here's a lesson for Democrats/Liberals, one more lacunae due to government schooling....

No one has a 'right' to a home at government expense.


Let's review the correct meaning of the term 'right.'

Here is what ‘rights’ are.
A right is something an individual has by virtue of being human.

1. Human beings are the only entities that have rights.

2. Rights belong to each human individually.

3. Rights are exercised by individuals, and are not given nor ascribed by any person of group, especially governments.

4. Rights are voluntary, in that individuals may choose whether to either exercise them or to ignore them.

5. Individual cannot have a right that infringes upon or diminishes the rights of others.

6. To be clear, ‘benefits’ such as education, shelter, or a job require resources from somewhere else, and therefore, cannot be given or protected without restricting another’s right to the property of his hands or mind.


For conservatives, rights precede government. Government’s purpose is to protect those rights.



Get it now, Liberals????

Like when Trump said he would take people's guns and ask questions later?

Whose economy do you want, the current President, of the former one, the Muslim guy?

Neither, they both are the same. Massive socialism out of the Fed.

"Whose economy do you want, the current President, of the former one, the Muslim guy?

Neither, they both are the same."


Do the attendants know you've chewed through the restraints again?

 

[pknopp]

If you haven't been convicted of anything there is no way to determine that. That's also how "red flag" laws work.

You support them, obviously, right?

If you haven't been convicted of anything, then you are law abiding. We aren't in the assumption business, but we can be in the preventive business to a certain degree. If a person is showing proof of a will to do violent thing's to other innocent people, and to do it with any weapon of choice, be it with a knife, vehicle, gun or whatever, and we know this by threats the person is making, then yes we should be pro-active in trying to thwart that person from being able to commit or carry out such threats being made after making them.

It depends on who is writing the laws, and who they are writing them for these days, in which determines whether or not the intent behind the laws are good or bad. Laws written for political reason's are generally going to be bad, because they could be written in order to obtain an outcome that has nothing to do with actual justice being sought after in the law. People have got to be smart enough to know the difference's or we won't have a functioning republic anymore.

O.K. so you are on record in support of removing the rights of people without due process.

Nice try leftist, but if you commit a crime as in threatening someone's life with bodily harm, then your rights upon prosecution of that crime have ended until time is served or a rehibilitation process has been fully completed after sentencing.

That isn't what Trump said. He said he would take a persons guns and ask questions later. No proof any crime was committed. Only accusations. No due process, only accusations. This is what you are supporting and you call me a "leftists"? Really?

Red flag laws can take a persons guns despite them not breaking any laws. Is this what you support because Trump has said he does.

Trump backs 'red flag' gun laws. What do they actually do? - CNNPolitics

You see, this is how you leftist roll. You listen and you listen until you THINK that you hear something that you can misconstrue or use, and then you pounce on hopes that the ignorant will take your bait Hook line and sinker. People are not as ignorant as you wish them to be, so just understand that, and then there might be hope for you changing in your attitudes and in your understanding yet.

Trump backs 'red flag' gun laws. What do they actually do? - CNNPolitics

What did I mishear?

Trump is for no such thing, and you are attempting to twist his intent and his words to fit your agenda which is to battle Trump at every turn (leftist).

He said he was. How is that twisting his words?

Trump didn't say in his own very words that he supports "Red flag laws"?

 

[beagle9]

....we have proof about the rumor that Democrats/Liberals are insane.


1. Government doesn't earn any money. It taxes folks who earn money, to get the money to give it away so as to buy votes.

2. Missing the point of where their money comes from, capitalism, insane politicians do everything possible to steal the money, and the ability to make more money, from earners....via theft called socialism.




3. But....they are inventive in their insanity.
Today, California 'chief insanity officer' has this amazing new proposal:

"Far-left California Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom said on Wednesday that he believes medical doctors should be able to prescribe people housing in the same manner that they prescribe medication to people who are sick.

“Health care and housing can no longer be divorced. After all, what’s more fundamental to a person’s well-being than a roof over their head?” Newsom said during his State of the State address. “Doctors should be able to write prescriptions for housing the same way they do for insulin or antibiotics.”
Democrat Gov Gavin Newsom: Doctors Should Be Able To Prescribe Housing Like Medication

Some gov't functions - and therefore taxes - are necessary and constitutionally justified. Our gov't has strayed far from the FF's intent.

"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." - Lord Acton

We need a flat tax, where as poor working people aren't penalized, and middle class working people aren't penalized, and the wealthy aren't penalized when paying taxes.

Then it comes down to the choices that each individual makes in order to get ahead in life.

No one should be penalized by a tax code whether they are rich or poor in life. The government doesn't need to be in the business of choosing winners and losers in life. It should be neutral and helpful in everything it does for everyone.

The tax codes are supposed to be wrote in ways in which help all, but not so sure if helping or hurting people with all the adds and loop holes written into the codes these days. Exploitation of the codes are probably rampant these days, because people don't seem to be doing as well as they should be, and alot of complaining is going on every election about it all. Time for real solutions.

The government shouldn't be in business to REGULATE what I want to do with my life, as it is my "CHOICE" what I do. Now if I am like a stupid liberal and walk down a busy street in protest and get my liberal dumb ass run over, then I should be responsible for my liberal stupid actions, not the driver, the city, the state, or the country.. Being liberal they never take responsibility for their actions, just like with abortion, they are quick to murder a baby because they had "CHOSEN" unwisely...

"Being liberal they never take responsibility for their actions,..."


Well, considering that they were promised exactly that, that they have no responsibility for their lives or actions.....I guess believing the lie is their fault.


Now they're waiting for the government to 'prescribe' a house for 'em....

And the government is attempting to put a band-aid on the situation or just kicking the can down the road. Otherwise just get it out of plain sight, and use taxpayers money to do so.

 

[pknopp]

Here's a lesson for Democrats/Liberals, one more lacunae due to government schooling....

No one has a 'right' to a home at government expense.


Let's review the correct meaning of the term 'right.'

Here is what ‘rights’ are.
A right is something an individual has by virtue of being human.

1. Human beings are the only entities that have rights.

2. Rights belong to each human individually.

3. Rights are exercised by individuals, and are not given nor ascribed by any person of group, especially governments.

4. Rights are voluntary, in that individuals may choose whether to either exercise them or to ignore them.

5. Individual cannot have a right that infringes upon or diminishes the rights of others.

6. To be clear, ‘benefits’ such as education, shelter, or a job require resources from somewhere else, and therefore, cannot be given or protected without restricting another’s right to the property of his hands or mind.


For conservatives, rights precede government. Government’s purpose is to protect those rights.



Get it now, Liberals????

Like when Trump said he would take people's guns and ask questions later?

Whose economy do you want, the current President, of the former one, the Muslim guy?

Neither, they both are the same. Massive socialism out of the Fed.

"Whose economy do you want, the current President, of the former one, the Muslim guy?

Neither, they both are the same."


Do the attendants know you've chewed through the restraints again?

The Fed plans to keep pumping cash - Axios

Who "earned" this money?

 

[beagle9]

If you haven't been convicted of anything, then you are law abiding. We aren't in the assumption business, but we can be in the preventive business to a certain degree. If a person is showing proof of a will to do violent thing's to other innocent people, and to do it with any weapon of choice, be it with a knife, vehicle, gun or whatever, and we know this by threats the person is making, then yes we should be pro-active in trying to thwart that person from being able to commit or carry out such threats being made after making them.

It depends on who is writing the laws, and who they are writing them for these days, in which determines whether or not the intent behind the laws are good or bad. Laws written for political reason's are generally going to be bad, because they could be written in order to obtain an outcome that has nothing to do with actual justice being sought after in the law. People have got to be smart enough to know the difference's or we won't have a functioning republic anymore.

O.K. so you are on record in support of removing the rights of people without due process.

Nice try leftist, but if you commit a crime as in threatening someone's life with bodily harm, then your rights upon prosecution of that crime have ended until time is served or a rehibilitation process has been fully completed after sentencing.

That isn't what Trump said. He said he would take a persons guns and ask questions later. No proof any crime was committed. Only accusations. No due process, only accusations. This is what you are supporting and you call me a "leftists"? Really?

Red flag laws can take a persons guns despite them not breaking any laws. Is this what you support because Trump has said he does.

Trump backs 'red flag' gun laws. What do they actually do? - CNNPolitics

You see, this is how you leftist roll. You listen and you listen until you THINK that you hear something that you can misconstrue or use, and then you pounce on hopes that the ignorant will take your bait Hook line and sinker. People are not as ignorant as you wish them to be, so just understand that, and then there might be hope for you changing in your attitudes and in your understanding yet.

Trump backs 'red flag' gun laws. What do they actually do? - CNNPolitics

What did I mishear?

Trump is for no such thing, and you are attempting to twist his intent and his words to fit your agenda which is to battle Trump at every turn (leftist).

He said he was. How is that twisting his words?

Trump didn't say in his own very words that he supports "Red flag laws"?

Red flag means that you have committed a crime in his thinking, and not the assumption that one is going to commit a crime so red tag them. Common sense man.

Now if worried about how those laws might be used, then you best not vote Democrat, and that's a fact jack.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

an irrelevant canadian stirring the pot ^^^^^^^^^^

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Except Newsome Did Say It
Second Video:
Tom Elliott on Twitter
Doctors Should Prescribe Housing
Housing Will Magically Appear At The Pharmacy

Streets Will Be Clogged
By People Dragging Their Bungalows Chained To Their Bumpers

Or Maybe We'll All Live Like This:

View attachment 307923

Nah , Californicators will live like this...

 

[pknopp]

O.K. so you are on record in support of removing the rights of people without due process.

Nice try leftist, but if you commit a crime as in threatening someone's life with bodily harm, then your rights upon prosecution of that crime have ended until time is served or a rehibilitation process has been fully completed after sentencing.

That isn't what Trump said. He said he would take a persons guns and ask questions later. No proof any crime was committed. Only accusations. No due process, only accusations. This is what you are supporting and you call me a "leftists"? Really?

Red flag laws can take a persons guns despite them not breaking any laws. Is this what you support because Trump has said he does.

Trump backs 'red flag' gun laws. What do they actually do? - CNNPolitics

You see, this is how you leftist roll. You listen and you listen until you THINK that you hear something that you can misconstrue or use, and then you pounce on hopes that the ignorant will take your bait Hook line and sinker. People are not as ignorant as you wish them to be, so just understand that, and then there might be hope for you changing in your attitudes and in your understanding yet.

Trump backs 'red flag' gun laws. What do they actually do? - CNNPolitics

What did I mishear?

Trump is for no such thing, and you are attempting to twist his intent and his words to fit your agenda which is to battle Trump at every turn (leftist).

He said he was. How is that twisting his words?

Trump didn't say in his own very words that he supports "Red flag laws"?

Red flag means that you have committed a crime in his thinking, and not the assumption that one is going to commit a crime so red tag them. Common sense man.

Now if worried about how those laws might be used, then you best not vote Democrat, and that's a fact jack.

I'm not interested in you telling me what you think he is thinking. I noted what he actually said. It is you spinning what was actually said by stating what you think he actually meant.

Granted, he is unable to speak very well.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Here's a lesson for Democrats/Liberals, one more lacunae due to government schooling....

No one has a 'right' to a home at government expense.


Let's review the correct meaning of the term 'right.'

Here is what ‘rights’ are.
A right is something an individual has by virtue of being human.

1. Human beings are the only entities that have rights.

2. Rights belong to each human individually.

3. Rights are exercised by individuals, and are not given nor ascribed by any person of group, especially governments.

4. Rights are voluntary, in that individuals may choose whether to either exercise them or to ignore them.

5. Individual cannot have a right that infringes upon or diminishes the rights of others.

6. To be clear, ‘benefits’ such as education, shelter, or a job require resources from somewhere else, and therefore, cannot be given or protected without restricting another’s right to the property of his hands or mind.


For conservatives, rights precede government. Government’s purpose is to protect those rights.



Get it now, Liberals????

Like when Trump said he would take people's guns and ask questions later?

Whose economy do you want, the current President, of the former one, the Muslim guy?

Neither, they both are the same. Massive socialism out of the Fed.

"Whose economy do you want, the current President, of the former one, the Muslim guy?

Neither, they both are the same."


Do the attendants know you've chewed through the restraints again?

The Fed plans to keep pumping cash - Axios

Who "earned" this money?

How about that insane Liberal (is that redundant?) idea of physicians 'prescribing' houses for those homeless, indigent, addicted Democrat voters?


Good idea?

 

[pknopp]

Like when Trump said he would take people's guns and ask questions later?

Whose economy do you want, the current President, of the former one, the Muslim guy?

Neither, they both are the same. Massive socialism out of the Fed.

"Whose economy do you want, the current President, of the former one, the Muslim guy?

Neither, they both are the same."


Do the attendants know you've chewed through the restraints again?

The Fed plans to keep pumping cash - Axios

Who "earned" this money?

How about that insane Liberal (is that redundant?) idea of physicians 'prescribing' houses for those homeless, indigent, addicted Democrat voters?


Good idea?

I know very little about that program. One take is it is a way to get mentally ill homeless off the streets. I don't know what the answer is to that. I would need to see far more about this than a single statement to say what I think.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Here's a lesson for Democrats/Liberals, one more lacunae due to government schooling....

No one has a 'right' to a home at government expense.


Let's review the correct meaning of the term 'right.'

Here is what ‘rights’ are.
A right is something an individual has by virtue of being human.

1. Human beings are the only entities that have rights.

2. Rights belong to each human individually.

3. Rights are exercised by individuals, and are not given nor ascribed by any person of group, especially governments.

4. Rights are voluntary, in that individuals may choose whether to either exercise them or to ignore them.

5. Individual cannot have a right that infringes upon or diminishes the rights of others.

6. To be clear, ‘benefits’ such as education, shelter, or a job require resources from somewhere else, and therefore, cannot be given or protected without restricting another’s right to the property of his hands or mind.


For conservatives, rights precede government. Government’s purpose is to protect those rights.



Get it now, Liberals????

You want Rump so bad, you take him. I know of a bunch that even raise the bus fare. But you have to keep him.

Your post makes no sense at all.

So you're a government school grad, huh?

Sceered you with that one, didn't I.

 

[karpenter]

Did you know that the Democrat's are responsible for closing the mental hospitals?


True story.

That's Right
You Can't Lock Someone Up For Being Nuts
Because Nuts Is Not A Crime

 

[pknopp]

So to actually read about the plan. People condemn California for the amount of homeless people on the streets. Complain that California does nothing. So Newsome comes up with a plan to address the situation.

“Health care and housing can no longer be divorced. After all, what’s more fundamental to a person’s well-being than a roof over their head?”

That's basically true. Left on their own the mentally ill on the streets are not going to get any better. The issue then becomes how he plans on doing this.

Will it be done in a way I support? I don't know but I've long said it can not be addressed until we are willing to talk about it and talk about possible solutions.

Newsome is doing that. I should condemn that?

 

[karpenter]

How about that insane Liberal (is that redundant?) idea of physicians 'prescribing' houses for those homeless, indigent, addicted Democrat voters?

I Heard Him Say 'Housing', Not 'Houses'
There's A Nuance In There

 

[PoliticalChic]

Here's a lesson for Democrats/Liberals, one more lacunae due to government schooling....

No one has a 'right' to a home at government expense.


Let's review the correct meaning of the term 'right.'

Here is what ‘rights’ are.
A right is something an individual has by virtue of being human.

1. Human beings are the only entities that have rights.

2. Rights belong to each human individually.

3. Rights are exercised by individuals, and are not given nor ascribed by any person of group, especially governments.

4. Rights are voluntary, in that individuals may choose whether to either exercise them or to ignore them.

5. Individual cannot have a right that infringes upon or diminishes the rights of others.

6. To be clear, ‘benefits’ such as education, shelter, or a job require resources from somewhere else, and therefore, cannot be given or protected without restricting another’s right to the property of his hands or mind.


For conservatives, rights precede government. Government’s purpose is to protect those rights.



Get it now, Liberals????

You want Rump so bad, you take him. I know of a bunch that even raise the bus fare. But you have to keep him.

Your post makes no sense at all.

So you're a government school grad, huh?

Sceered you with that one, didn't I.

Only the possible contagion.....

 

[karpenter]

Trump is for no such thing, and you are attempting to twist his intent and his words to fit your agenda

Not Necessarily
The Lib/Prog Mind Interprets And Translates
Around What Is Otherwise Plain Conversational English

Plus, They've Already Put The Words In Your Mouth Based On Their Own Prejudices
That Puts You On The Defensive


It's Part Of Their Affliction
You'll Need To Learn To Spot The Condition For What It Is

 

[PoliticalChic]

....we have proof about the rumor that Democrats/Liberals are insane.


1. Government doesn't earn any money. It taxes folks who earn money, to get the money to give it away so as to buy votes.

2. Missing the point of where their money comes from, capitalism, insane politicians do everything possible to steal the money, and the ability to make more money, from earners....via theft called socialism.




3. But....they are inventive in their insanity.
Today, California 'chief insanity officer' has this amazing new proposal:

"Far-left California Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom said on Wednesday that he believes medical doctors should be able to prescribe people housing in the same manner that they prescribe medication to people who are sick.

“Health care and housing can no longer be divorced. After all, what’s more fundamental to a person’s well-being than a roof over their head?” Newsom said during his State of the State address. “Doctors should be able to write prescriptions for housing the same way they do for insulin or antibiotics.”
Democrat Gov Gavin Newsom: Doctors Should Be Able To Prescribe Housing Like Medication

Newsom's insane proposal is simply an inept Liberal attempt to clean up the homelessness problem spearheaded by California.


It should be recalled that Democrat John Kennedy was the cause.


.... in the address itself, Newsom does actually pinpoint when homelessness began to arise as an issue:

President Kennedy envisioned a system in which, in his words, “the reliance on the cold mercy of custodial isolation will be supplanted by the open warmth of community concern.”

State mental hospitals were closed. But the promise of community mental health was never fully realized.

The states were burdened with the responsibility but provided little in the way of support.

Laws were changed that made it harder to compel mental health treatment. Governor Ronald Reagan signed the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act in 1967, designed to end the inappropriate lifetime commitment of people with mental illness.

And critically, in 1975, a U.S. Supreme Court decision, O’Connor v. Donaldson, ruled that “mental illness alone cannot justify a state locking a person up against his will.”
State of Homelessness: Governor focuses entire State of the State on housing crisis