The reason Conservatives lie so much

[Lysistrata]

I don't, I don't blame my wife, for carry one when she goes out.
I’m not going to tell her any different.
I'm the one who may get shot.

I just wonder what makes her so fearful when she goes out. I circulate in my community in northern Virginia, go to the stores, ride the rails even to the stops in Washington, DC, when I want to go to the Smithsonian or walk in Georgetown. I don't know where you live, but maybe you should get your wife some counseling. Good grief! Would she fear a casual walk down M Street?

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

I just wonder what makes her so fearful when she goes out. I circulate in my community in northern Virginia, go to the stores, ride the rails even to the stops in Washington, DC, when I want to go to the Smithsonian or walk in Georgetown. I don't know where you live, but maybe you should get your wife some counseling. Good grief! Would she fear a casual walk down M Street?

She doesn't carry ALL the time or when I'm with her.
Generally, when she goes shopping by herself, sometimes with our daughter or our pre school granddaughter
I'm not arguing, she/they COULD be a target for a number of things, not just getting shot at.

She knows how to use it, she has two gun safety courses under her belt by the sheriff's dept, even though she only needs on to get her CCW.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

I just wonder what makes her so fearful when she goes out. I circulate in my community in northern Virginia, go to the stores, ride the rails even to the stops in Washington, DC, when I want to go to the Smithsonian or walk in Georgetown. I don't know where you live, but maybe you should get your wife some counseling. Good grief! Would she fear a casual walk down M Street?

Not a casual walk, going to a museum or concert, etc.
Generally going places at night or when she has items of value.

 

[FA_Q2]

Their policies suck? No Democratic President has EVER crashed the economy. Even the size of government is SMALLER under Democrats.

Republicans lie because their policies are failures and if they told the truth, no one making less than a million a year would vote for them.

Instead of coming up with policies that people will vote for, Republicans have convinced their voters that the MSM cannot be trusted, so they believe only the lying right wing media, privately owned by billionaires who benefit from Republican policy. It's a circle jerk.

Right wing media tells viewers that the MSM, which has to answer to directors, shareholders and the public is lying, and the lying right wing media is telling the truth. Not only do they get to lie with impunity, but you're convinced the other side are the liars. BONUS!!!

Republicans can continue to lie to their voters with impunity. Right wing media backs them up, and their voters never fact check anything.

Why do republicans lie?

Dragon lady here to tell you exactly why with a pack of lies...

The irony.

 

[Dragonlady]

Why do republicans lie?

Dragon lady here to tell you exactly why with a pack of lies...

The irony.

So I give you a well reasoned post with actual facts, and you call it lies. What a well-trained Republican voter you are. Lies are true and truth is lies.

Be smarter than that.

 

[Blues Man]

No it's not. Liberal policies are successful and liberals have no need to lie. Plus lying to liberals doesn't work. We fact check everything. That's why there's no "fake news" liberal sites. They all failed due to fact checking by readers.

Fact Check: So who's checking the fact-finders? We are

Journalists have always been fact-checkers. Now, thanks to the Internet and social media, everyone has a soapbox, and everyone can send truths and untruths to hundreds of people with the push of a bu…

www.jacksonville.com

There is very little difference between republicans and democrats

 

[FA_Q2]

So I give you a well reasoned post with actual facts, and you call it lies. What a well-trained Republican voter you are. Lies are true and truth is lies.

Be smarter than that.

No, you gave me a pack of lies. Like you always do.

I don't actually expect the partisan blinders to allow you to even assess the validity of your claims or my political predilections let alone discuss them.

 

[hadit]

Wow, so all it takes is a single judge to approve a warrant, so police can break down your door and search your property too.
All it takes is a single judge to approve a warrant for police to seize your car.
All it takes is a single judge to approve a warrant for police to seize your boat.

That's the way the law works.

'THEN it goes into the courts where the person has to fight to get his/her property back'.
That's what they are there for.

They can only do that if a crime has been committed already and they have enough reason to believe you committed the crime. In this case, no crime has been committed, somebody is just afraid someone else might do something. Big difference, big enough you should be able to see it.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

They can only do that if a crime has been committed already and they have enough reason to believe you committed the crime. In this case, no crime has been committed, somebody is just afraid someone else might do something. Big difference, big enough you should be able to see it.

You're wrong.
Threatening a person and his staff could be a crime.
Evidently, a judge and police agreed.

NJ Terroristic Threats N.J.S.A. 2C:12-3​

While the first element of this statute seems to imply a threat of public safety, most terroristic threats charges stem from issues of domestic violence. There are far fewer bomb threats than there are instances of verbal threats like “I’m going to kill you.” While these issues most commonly occur between people that know each other, instances of road rage or even alcohol fueled fights can result in a terrorstic threats charge between perfect strangers.

The only element that needs to be present for this charge to exist is the threat of physical injury (i.e. “I’m going to break your leg”), damage to one’s property (i.e. “I’m going to burn your house down”), or even injury to an individual of importance to the threatened party (i.e. “I am going to kill your daughter.”) This threat also has to reasonably cause fear. If two friends are joking around and one crosses the line by saying something like, “If the 49ers win the superbowl, I’m going to burn your house down,” it’s not necessarily reasonable to assume that its reasonable to take the threat seriously.

If a reasonable person believes that the threat is real and that there is a legitimate chance that it might actually be carried out, then a terroristic threat exists. That said, courts have found that a serious threat is not just a temper tantrum or burst of anger in which some irrational threats are shouted. In reality, courts are going to look at all of the facts surrounding the case, and determine whether or not these threats fall under the statute.

 

[tshrimp]

I just wonder what makes her so fearful when she goes out. I circulate in my community in northern Virginia, go to the stores, ride the rails even to the stops in Washington, DC, when I want to go to the Smithsonian or walk in Georgetown. I don't know where you live, but maybe you should get your wife some counseling. Good grief! Would she fear a casual walk down M Street?

I was watching the news yesterday, and they mentioned murder and assaults are up by a good bit this year. Maybe this is the reason? Combine that with Antifa, BLM, defunding police, porous border, etc. It would be understandable why some may feel the need to carry more now then in the past.

 

[tshrimp]

They can only do that if a crime has been committed already and they have enough reason to believe you committed the crime. In this case, no crime has been committed, somebody is just afraid someone else might do something. Big difference, big enough you should be able to see it.

He can't see it. I have tried to show him, but he cannot seem to get that taking a gun without a crime being committed is not due process, and just flat out wrong. Even the examples he gives will support your case and not his, but he doesn't realize it.

 

[WTH_Progs?]

'The Republicans controlled both houses when "Clinton balanced the budget" which is a lie anyway. The budget hasn't been balanced since Nixon. They're too dumb as rocks to know the primary reasons for good standing was Dot.com and open Chinese trade, and **** have we paid the price for that business long term, that's well over PROG-heads'.

You don't know the different between the debt and the budget deficit.

You can make be current on your house, car payments and bills for the year, that means you don't have budget deficit but until you pay them off, you still have debt.

Clinton, not only balanced our budget deficit, but we had a surplus.
THEN, you want to steal the credit for that by claiming republicans had both houses of congress, is the reason why Clinton balanced the budget.

IF that even had a scintilla of truth to it, when George took over, along with republicans turned a $128 surplus into a $158 billion deficit.

Republicans can't balance a checkbook, let alone a budget.



'O'bummer's economic recovery from the deep "Bush's recession" was a ******* joke. Shit, GDP raised approx. 40% Trump's last two quarters, what's O'bummer's excuse'?

Yes, it was, reeling from another republican recession, republicans fought Obama at every turn trying to get us out of the recession, their solution? Tax cuts, of course.

Just like they are with Biden.
Republicans love to rake up debt, just like their dear leader, they don't want to pay for it.

'"I am the king of debt. I do love debt. I love debt and I love playing with it, but of course now you're talking about something that's very, very fragile, and it has to be handled very, very carefully," Trump said.

Right, careful with your debt, not the public debt you racked up, all $6.6 trillion in four years of disaster.
Obama didn't rack up that much debt in 8 years.

No one comes close to the orange retard.

Thanks for your correction.

You're wrong about Clinton. See below. The last surplus was 2001, but what happened in 2001, any guesses? Anyone? Come on, Dot.com crash and what else was it again? That one come free? Guesses?

You're clearly intellectually dishonest. Besides 9-11 you ignore COVID like it never ******* happened. Our debt was an improved standing over Obummer until COVID with a Democrat Congress.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/no-bill-clinton-didnt-balance-budget

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Thanks for your correction.

You're wrong about Clinton. See below. The last surplus was 2001, but what happened in 2001, any guesses? Anyone? Come on, Dot.com crash and what else was it again? That one come free? Guesses?

You're clearly intellectually dishonest. Besides 9-11 you ignore COVID like it never ******* happened. Our debt was an improved standing over Obummer until COVID with a Democrat Congress.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/no-bill-clinton-didnt-balance-budget

You're wrong about......................everything.
Yes, the LAST surplus was in 2001.
Clinton had budget surpluses for three years prior.

$128.2 in 2001.
$236.2 billion in 2000.
$125.5 billion in 1999.
$69.2 billion in 1998.

'but what happened in 2001, any guesses? Anyone? Come on, Dot.com crash and what else was it again? That one come free? Guesses'?

Oh' yeah, Bush gave it all away in tax cuts.

June 8, 2001
President Bush fulfilled a major promise of his campaign for president yesterday, signing into law the most sweeping tax cut in two decades, which he called "the first major achievement of a new era."

Bush signed the $1.35 trillion tax cut -- which includes soon-to-be-mailed rebate checks of up to $600 -- amid the kind of presidential pomp he usually disdains: a formal ceremony in the East Room, with a Marine band playing "Hail to the Chief."
Bush's top aides already were talking about the next step: pushing through a corporate tax cut next year.

'Ignore 9/11'? Notice the date.
Bush gave it all away and then some BEFORE 9/11.

' Our debt was an improved standing over Obummer until COVID'.
More revisionist history.

In 2017, the first year of Trump at the budget reigns.
$672 billion increase.
2018- $1.3 trillion increase.
2019- $1.2 trillion increase.
2020- $1.2 trillion increase. (Before covid)
$4.2 trillion (After covid)

T

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

He can't see it. I have tried to show him, but he cannot seem to get that taking a gun without a crime being committed is not due process, and just flat out wrong. Even the examples he gives will support your case and not his, but he doesn't realize it.

NO, it doesn't, moron.

I just gave you the law, the LEGAL definition of 'due process' and you still claim, the judge, cops and me are wrong.

NJ Terroristic Threats N.J.S.A. 2C:12-3​

While the first element of this statute seems to imply a threat of public safety, most terroristic threats charges stem from issues of domestic violence. There are far fewer bomb threats than there are instances of verbal threats like “I’m going to kill you.” While these issues most commonly occur between people that know each other, instances of road rage or even alcohol fueled fights can result in a terrorstic threats charge between perfect strangers.

The only element that needs to be present for this charge to exist is the threat of physical injury (i.e. “I’m going to break your leg”), damage to one’s property (i.e. “I’m going to burn your house down”), or even injury to an individual of importance to the threatened party (i.e. “I am going to kill your daughter.”) This threat also has to reasonably cause fear.
If a reasonable person believes that the threat is real and that there is a legitimate chance that it might actually be carried out, then a terroristic threat exists.

AND, it did.

 

[tshrimp]

NO, it doesn't, moron.

I just gave you the law, the LEGAL definition of 'due process' and you still claim, the judge, cops and me are wrong.

NJ Terroristic Threats N.J.S.A. 2C:12-3​

While the first element of this statute seems to imply a threat of public safety, most terroristic threats charges stem from issues of domestic violence. There are far fewer bomb threats than there are instances of verbal threats like “I’m going to kill you.” While these issues most commonly occur between people that know each other, instances of road rage or even alcohol fueled fights can result in a terrorstic threats charge between perfect strangers.

The only element that needs to be present for this charge to exist is the threat of physical injury (i.e. “I’m going to break your leg”), damage to one’s property (i.e. “I’m going to burn your house down”), or even injury to an individual of importance to the threatened party (i.e. “I am going to kill your daughter.”) This threat also has to reasonably cause fear.
If a reasonable person believes that the threat is real and that there is a legitimate chance that it might actually be carried out, then a terroristic threat exists.

AND, it did.

LOL. That is concerning NJ Terroristic Threats 2C:12-3, and that differs from their red flag law (ERPO). Those are illegal acts, so are therefore charged and/or arrested and then they take your guns away if they deem necessary.

Here is their red flag law.

Red Flag Law New Jersey

Can a judge sign an order allowing police to seize your guns even if you do not break a single law? Read on to find out about the ERPO petition, Red Flag Law New Jersey and more!

www.uslawshield.com

A family or household member or law enforcement officer may file a petition for a temporary ERPO alleging that the respondent poses a significant danger of bodily injury to themselves or others by having custody or control of, owning, possessing, purchasing, or receiving a firearm or ammunition.

I know you don't have the ability to see the difference. But, if you break the law (as in your example above as threats/acts of violence is illegal), you are charged/arrested, you go to court and found guilty (or innocent) ... that is due process. If a family member files a petition because they think you are too stressed to be around guns, you did not break any laws, yet they petition and succeed to have your guns taken. That is not due process.

 

[WTH_Progs?]

You're wrong about......................everything.
Yes, the LAST surplus was in 2001.
Clinton had budget surpluses for three years prior.

$128.2 in 2001.
$236.2 billion in 2000.
$125.5 billion in 1999.
$69.2 billion in 1998.

'but what happened in 2001, any guesses? Anyone? Come on, Dot.com crash and what else was it again? That one come free? Guesses'?

Oh' yeah, Bush gave it all away in tax cuts.

June 8, 2001
President Bush fulfilled a major promise of his campaign for president yesterday, signing into law the most sweeping tax cut in two decades, which he called "the first major achievement of a new era."

Bush signed the $1.35 trillion tax cut -- which includes soon-to-be-mailed rebate checks of up to $600 -- amid the kind of presidential pomp he usually disdains: a formal ceremony in the East Room, with a Marine band playing "Hail to the Chief."
Bush's top aides already were talking about the next step: pushing through a corporate tax cut next year.

'Ignore 9/11'? Notice the date.
Bush gave it all away and then some BEFORE 9/11.

' Our debt was an improved standing over Obummer until COVID'.
More revisionist history.

In 2017, the first year of Trump at the budget reigns.
$672 billion increase.
2018- $1.3 trillion increase.
2019- $1.2 trillion increase.
2020- $1.2 trillion increase. (Before covid)
$4.2 trillion (After covid)

T

You're so intellectually dishonest. Those surpluses were with the Republicans controlling both houses.

ILMAO June 2001 has anything to do with 9-11-2001, you're still denying the impact, why? Because you're a PROG in good PROG standing.

We're were in an improved standing under Trump simply because total debt had slowed to O'bummer's pace however you have to consider GDP increased on Trump's watch as did inflation.

2009-2019, total debt

11.90 T

13.56 T

14.79 T

16.06 T

16.74 T

17.82 T

18.15 T

19.57 T

20.24 T

21.52 T

22.71 T

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

LOL. That is concerning NJ Terroristic Threats 2C:12-3, and that differs from their red flag law (ERPO). Those are illegal acts, so are therefore charged and/or arrested and then they take your guns away if they deem necessary.

Here is their red flag law.

Red Flag Law New Jersey

Can a judge sign an order allowing police to seize your guns even if you do not break a single law? Read on to find out about the ERPO petition, Red Flag Law New Jersey and more!

www.uslawshield.com

I know you don't have the ability to see the difference. But, if you break the law (as in your example above as threats/acts of violence is illegal), you are charged/arrested, you go to court and found guilty (or innocent) ... that is due process. If a family member files a petition because they think you are too stressed to be around guns, you did not break any laws, yet they petition to have your guns taken.

'That is concerning NJ Terroristic Threats 2C:12-3, and that differs from their red flag law (ERPO). Those are illegal acts, so are therefore charged and/or arrested and then they take your guns away if they deem necessary'.

No, it isn't.
NJ Terroristic Threats 2C:12-3 was the law that existed before the red flag law was enacted, it does the same thing.


August 29, 2019

A New Jersey law is set to take effect Sunday, allowing law enforcement to remove a person’s firearms if they are found to be mentally unstable or at risk of harm to themselves or others.

With the new law, the “Extreme Risk Protective Order Act of 2018,” family members and those living in the same household as a gun owner can request their guns be taken away through a petition to the state Superior Court.
The application must identify why the particular gun owner presents a risk of either self-harm or harm to others. If a judge agrees with the claims of the application, they may then issue an order to law enforcement to collect the firearms and bar the person from owning, buying or possessing any firearms for a period of time.
Under the new policy, law enforcement officers may also petition the court for the removal of guns. People who are neither family, or living in the same house or a law enforcement officer will have to request that a law enforcement officer submit an application for the removal of another person’s firearms on their behalf. (The Dr, via the cops)

Before a judge can approve the application for removal of firearms, the judge must question the petitioner under oath, along with any witnesses the petitioner can produce for their claim. The judge may, however, accept an affidavit in support of the original petition as grounds for issuing a protective order.

americanmilitarynews.com › 2019 › 08

On Sept. 25, police confiscated guns from the home of Alfred Conti, 56, after a surgeon who operated on him, Dr. Matthew Kaufman, and Kaufman's attorney, James Maggs, called authorities to complain that Conti called the lawyer acting agitated.

Kaufman and Maggs sued Conti for defamation over the summer.

Even after being sued, Conti called Maggs twice, begging for Kaufman to treat him for his pain. In the second phone call, Asbury Park Press reported, "Conti used expletives and threatened to bring the police and media with him to force Kaufman to see him. He also said he knew where Maggs and Kaufman lived."

The attorney had recorded the conversation, and played it in court during a hearing on Thursday.

 

[surada]

Why do republicans lie?

Dragon lady here to tell you exactly why with a pack of lies...

The irony.

She's not a liar. You are just caught up in Trump worship.

 

[surada]

I was watching the news yesterday, and they mentioned murder and assaults are up by a good bit this year. Maybe this is the reason? Combine that with Antifa, BLM, defunding police, porous border, etc. It would be understandable why some may feel the need to carry more now then in the past.

The numbers are from 2020.

 

[Papageorgio]

Conservative lies: You've heard them all before-

Liberals want to take all our guns away, Liberals want open borders, Liberals never work, Liberals are soft on crime, Liberals just want is "free stuff" Liberals are Socialists, Liberals hate white people, Liberals are destroying our cities with crime and violence. On and on it goes. Here is the cold, hard truth why these lies persist to this day-

Conservatives have nothing better to offer the American people!

Think about it...was the American economy better under Reagan, the Bush's and Trump than that of Clinton, Obama, and Biden? Answer: NO. Was America any safer? Answer: NO Was the crime rate any lower? Answer: NO Was the national debt any smaller? Answer: NO. (Clinton was the last President to record a national surplus) Was the environment any cleaner? Answer: NO Were our children any better educated? Answer: NO. Did our justice system work any better? Answer: NO And the list goes on -

The bottom line is the Conservative agenda has little to offer average Americans, and a great deal to offer the 1%. To make up for this, Conservative America resorts to district gerrymandering, name calling, conspiracy theory's, soundbites such as "deep state" "MSM", as well as deeply questioning the legitimacy of America's 240+ year electoral process to create the impression that "it's all rigged!" When in fact it's really not.

But, Conservatives have nothing better to offer....

Just as liberals claim conservatives want to kill granny, want dirty water, dirty air, hate blacks, hate Mexicans and so on. I think it is more accurate to say Democrats and Republicans, not liberal and conservative. I know both liberals and conservatives that dont belong to either party. That said, I see more Democrats, lefties, Republicans and righties than I see real liberals and conservatives.