The reason Conservatives lie so much

[Blues Man]

Not really, but that's what the conservative chatting class tells you so you repeat it.

I'm not a conservative , never was.

 

[IM2]

You don't plan to overthrow the most powerful nation in the world with no guns. Again, only indoctrinated morons believe that crap the MSM spews.

They had guns and all they had to do was mess up the proceedings and get trump installed. We all saw what happened. That MSM line won't work. You're a loon and you've shown us that even more now.

 

[IM2]

I'm not a conservative , never was.

But you repeat right wing junk.

 

[IM2]

She said she doesn't believe that.

Sour Suzie is another right wing loon. She should not be teaching our children.

 

[Blues Man]

But you repeat right wing junk.

No I don't.

 

[IM2]

No I don't.

There is very little difference between republicans and democrats

This is right wing junk. There are major differences between these parties.

 

[Blues Man]

This is right wing junk. There are major differences between these parties.

No that is an observation based on the fact that BOTH parties have done nothing but make government bigger and more expensive.

The political dogma is meaningless if we just keep paying more for less.

 

[Dragonlady]

There is very little difference between republicans and democrats

There is a HUGE difference between the parties. Republicans are pursuing power at all costs, including ending democracy in the USA. They impeached Clinton because they could, and to get revenge for Watergate and Iran Contra. They impeached Clinton because he was more popular than Reagan had ever been because he'd done a better job for the American people than Reagan.

Democrats impeach Donald Trump because he was a corrupt criminal. I know you don't see the difference through your partisan coloured glasses, but everyone outside the USA who has been watching your politics over the past 50 years can see the degradation of morals and ethics in the Republican Party, and how dangerous it has become, and continues to be under Donald Trump.

Republicans are setting the stage to overturn any election the results of which they don't like. Minorities are being prevented from voting, with polling stations closing - more than 1100 of them in red states in the past 6 years, in predominantly poor and minority neighbourhoods. Hours for voting are being reduced, as are the number of days you can vote.

How do ANY of these moves prevent election or voter fraud? They only make it more difficult for the people in these neighbourhoods to vote, which is, of course, their only intention.

 

[Blues Man]

There is a HUGE difference between the parties. Republicans are pursuing power at all costs, including ending democracy in the USA. They impeached Clinton because they could, and to get revenge for Watergate and Iran Contra. They impeached Clinton because he was more popular than Reagan had ever been because he'd done a better job for the American people than Reagan.

Democrats impeach Donald Trump because he was a corrupt criminal. I know you don't see the difference through your partisan coloured glasses, but everyone outside the USA who has been watching your politics over the past 50 years can see the degradation of morals and ethics in the Republican Party, and how dangerous it has become, and continues to be under Donald Trump.

Republicans are setting the stage to overturn any election the results of which they don't like. Minorities are being prevented from voting, with polling stations closing - more than 1100 of them in red states in the past 6 years, in predominantly poor and minority neighbourhoods. Hours for voting are being reduced, as are the number of days you can vote.

How do ANY of these moves prevent election or voter fraud? They only make it more difficult for the people in these neighbourhoods to vote, which is, of course, their only intention.

Aside from a couple hot button issues there isn't much difference.

Congress doesn't give a shit what the people want it doesn't matter which of the 2 corrupt parties is in power

 

[Dragonlady]

No that is an observation based on the fact that BOTH parties have done nothing but make government bigger and more expensive.

The political dogma is meaningless if we just keep paying more for less.

As your country becomes larger, the populations grow and the cities increase in size. This necessitates increasing the size of government to add the schools, post offices, hospitals, roads bridges, and courts to deal with the every expanding population.

But Republicans are always so concerned about "fraud" or someone getting something they don't deserve, that they institute means tests and fraud prevention which vastly increases the size and cost of programs. One example is drug testing for welfare recipients. The State of Florida spent over $1.1 million pouring over welfare records and calling in those mostly likely to be on drugs for testing. Those testing positive for drugs, were cut off welfare.

After much fanfare for this program, and spending over $1.1 million in testing, the state saved $100,000 in welfare payments as a result. The program cost more than $1 million than it saved. Such is the fiscal logic of Republicans.

Policy Research

NCSL’s experts are here to answer your questions and give you unbiased, comprehensive information as soon as you need it on issues facing state legislatures. We answer more than 20,000 requests for information a year.

www.ncsl.org

This isn't rocket science.

 

[Blues Man]

As your country becomes larger, the populations grow and the cities increase in size. This necessitates increasing the size of government to add the schools, post offices, hospitals, roads bridges, and courts to deal with the every expanding population.

But Republicans are always so concerned about "fraud" or someone getting something they don't deserve, that they institute means tests and fraud prevention which vastly increases the size and cost of programs. One example is drug testing for welfare recipients. The State of Florida spent over $1.1 million pouring over welfare records and calling in those mostly likely to be on drugs for testing. Those testing positive for drugs, were cut off welfare.

After much fanfare for this program, and spending over $1.1 million in testing, the state saved $100,000 in welfare payments as a result. The program cost more than $1 million than it saved. Such is the fiscal logic of Republicans.

Policy Research

NCSL’s experts are here to answer your questions and give you unbiased, comprehensive information as soon as you need it on issues facing state legislatures. We answer more than 20,000 requests for information a year.

www.ncsl.org

This isn't rocket science.

The proportional cost of government to GDP does not have to increase like it has.

Government is eating up 44% of GDP

 

[Dragonlady]

Aside from a couple hot button issues there isn't much difference.

Congress doesn't give a shit what the people want it doesn't matter which of the 2 corrupt parties is in power

One major difference is honesty and ethics. Since Richard Nixon, the Democratic Party has placed a premium on ethical government. While members of successive Republican Administration have been convicted of over 300 criminal charges since Richard Nixon for a wide array of abuses of power, 3 such Democrats have been charged and convicted.

While the right wing media consistently portrays the Democrats as liars and criminals, the facts simply don't support any such assessment.

While the Bill Clinton moved the Democratic Party far to the right, to reflect the right wing popularity of the Reagan Administration, he still raised the minimum wage, prosecuted those who employed illegal immigrants, and he balanced the Budget.

What you fail to realize is that Reagan's economy only helped the rich. Food stamp use doubled in the first year after Reagan cut taxes, even though he tightened eligibility requirements. Poverty also increased under Reagan. And the economy crashed - something that has happened consistently before the end of the term of every Republican President who has cut taxes for the wealthy.

Republican policies continue to promote the idea that if the wealthy pay no taxes, their wealth will "trickle down" in the job creation their wealth provides. Even though it's been proven to be a lie, YOU still believe them.

Democrats are returning to their leftist policies which favour the working and middle class - the people that Republican fiscal policies have been screwing over since Reagan.

 

[Lysistrata]

'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.

Some 25 years ago, I removed the guns from a house in NJ, smuggled them out and dropped them behind extensive hedges on the property after a mentally ill relative of mine went wild and threatened an elderly family member and I saw it happen. I did not put the weapons in my car because the mentally ill relative could have fought me for the keys). I drove the person threatened to the town police station, and told the cops where I had dumped the guns. One thing that I wanted to avoid was having a town cop enter the house, be faced with my mentally ill relative holding a gun, and having to shoot him. I would have had a dead relative and an innocent cop who would have to live his life knowing that he had killed someone. My relative has been in care these many years. He knows that I did what I did because I didn't want him or anyone else to die. I support him. The cops were grateful.

This is an ugly memory, one that I wish that I could erase from my brain forever. But I can't. It is something that I don't want to talk about. I write about it here in the hope that it does someone, somewhere, good.

BTW: this happened in Bergen County, not Monmouth.

 

[Dragonlady]

The proportional cost of government to GDP does not have to increase like it has.

Government is eating up 44% of GDP

Blame Republicans for that. They're the ones who keep cutting taxes while increasing spending. Democrats TAX before they spend. They pay for what they're buying. Republicans have put everything on the credit card. Two major tax cuts for the wealthy. 20 years of war. And the costs of both the climate change you're ignoring, and the pandemic they mis-managed.

Currently 80% of the wealth and income goes to the top 10% of individuals and corporations. The USA is the only first world country where life expectancy is declining, and the middle class is shrinking. 40 years of Republican tax and labour policy are turning the USA into Brazil.

 

[Smokin' OP]

He couldn't walk in to Hawaii.

Well, he was the 'messiah' according to wing nuts.

 

[Smokin' OP]

Some 25 years ago, I removed the guns from a house in NJ, smuggled them out and dropped them behind extensive hedges on the property after a mentally ill relative of mine went wild and threatened an elderly family member and I saw it happen. I did not put the weapons in my car because the mentally ill relative could have fought me for the keys). I drove the person threatened to the town police station, and told the cops where I had dumped the guns. One thing that I wanted to avoid was having a town cop enter the house, be faced with my mentally ill relative holding a gun, and having to shoot him. I would have had a dead relative and an innocent cop who would have to live his life knowing that he had killed someone. My relative has been in care these many years. He knows that I did what I did because I didn't want him or anyone else to die. I support him. The cops were grateful.

This is an ugly memory, one that I wish that I could erase from my brain forever. But I can't. It is something that I don't want to talk about. I write about it here in the hope that it does someone, somewhere, good.

BTW: this happened in Bergen County, not Monmouth.

It's sad, you did the right thing.

 

[tshrimp]

'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.

First off. They are NOT the same thing, and a new law supersedes the old law if they addressed the same thing. Which these two clearly don't. However, when you post how due process is being followed with red flags, you continually follow up with an example where it isn't being followed. You keep doing this over and over. Even you stated in an earlier post that a notification to the individual being accused is required for it to qualify as due process. In your case above did that happen, or are you changing your definition to fit your narrative? Or in all your outlier examples were these people given their notification and ability to defend themselves BEFORE their guns were taken?

 

[tshrimp]

The numbers are from 2020.

LOL. So you know the news I was watching was talking about 2020? You have a clairvoyant gift. However, they specifically stated it increased in 2020, and has continued the uptick in 2021.

 

[Lysistrata]

It's sad, you did the right thing.

Thank you very much. I think so. There is nothing else that I could have done. I wish that more attention was paid to mental health in the U.S. and more help given to families who are afflicted with mental illness. When this occurred, I had already met with an attorney who specialized in mental-health law. "Danger to self or others." How to meet this standard? Oh, good luck with that. The night this happened, the roving band of mental-health professionals who one was supposed to call for help was busy with a jumper on the George Washington Bridge.

 

[tshrimp]

Yeah, that only applies to whites. When it's somebody black, they are guilty first and remain guilty even when the jury says otherwise. Ask the family of George Floyd who still have to hear racist whites talking about an overdose he didn't have.

What a racist statement that is total crap.