Aleksandar37
Well-known member
Right. All those headlines still talking about Jussie.
Donald Trump running for president
- Thread starter LiftWithDonuts
- Start date
Aleksandar37
Well-known member
Speaking of douche bags, someone attacked Arnold, although he totally laughed it off. Invalid Link Removed
ax1
Legend
Invalid Link Removed
Written by Invalid Link Removed
Monday May 20, 2019
Invalid Link Removed
A common trick of big-government loving politicians is to give legislation names so appealing that it seems no reasonable person could oppose it. The truth is, the more unobjectionable the title, the more objectionable the content. Two well-known examples are the “PATRIOT Act” and the “Access to Affordable and Quality Care Act.”
Another great example is the Violence Against Women Act. Passed in 1994, the Violence Against Women Act provides federal grants to, and imposes federal mandates on, state and local governments with the goal of increasing arrests, prosecutions, and convictions of those who commit domestic violence.
Like most federal laws, the Violence Against Women Act is unconstitutional. The Constitution limits federal jurisdiction to three crimes: counterfeiting, treason, and piracy. All other crimes — including domestic violence — are strictly state and local matters.
The law also forbids anyone subject to a restraining order obtained by a spouse or a domestic partner from owning a gun. This is a blatant violation of the Second Amendment’s prohibition on federal laws denying anyone the right to own a gun. Whether someone subject to a restraining order, or convicted of a violent crime, should lose their rights to own firearms is a question to be decided by state and local officials.
At least the current law requires individuals receive due process before the government can deprive them of their Second Amendment rights. The House of Representatives recently passed legislation reauthorizing and making changes to the Violence Against Women Act. The most disturbing part of this “upgrade” gives government the power to take away an individual’s Second Amendment rights based solely on an allegation that the individual committed an act of domestic violence. The accused then loses Second Amendment rights without even having an opportunity to tell their side of the story to a judge.
This is a version of “red flag” laws that are becoming increasingly popular. Red flag laws are not just supported by authoritarians like Senators Diane Feinstein and Lindsey Graham, but by alleged “constitutional conservatives” like Sen. Ted Cruz.
Red flag laws have led to dangerous confrontations between law enforcement and citizens who assumed that those breaking into their property to take their guns are private, rather than government, thieves.
The House bill also expands red flag laws to cover those accused of “misdemeanor stalking.” Many jurisdictions define misdemeanor stalking to include “cyber” or online stalking. These means someone could lose Second Amendment rights for sending someone an “offensive” Facebook or Twitter message.
Forbidding someone from owning a firearm because of offensive social media posts sets a precedent that could be used to impose legal sanctions on those posting “hate speech.” Since hate speech is defined as “speech I don’t agree with,” this could lead to the de facto outlawing of free speech online.
Instead of addressing concerns over the inclusion of new red flag type laws in the Violence Against Women’s Act, proponents of the bill have smeared their critics as not caring about domestic violence. As Reason magazine senior editor Jacob Sullum has pointed out, these progressives sound like neoconservatives who smear PATRIOT Act opponents as allies of Al Qaeda.
All decent people oppose domestic violence and terrorism. However, the desire to catch and punish wrongdoers does not justify violating the Constitution or denying anyone due process. When government violates the rights of anyone it threatens the liberties of everyone.
Copyright © 2019 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given. Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Written by Invalid Link Removed
Monday May 20, 2019
Invalid Link Removed
A common trick of big-government loving politicians is to give legislation names so appealing that it seems no reasonable person could oppose it. The truth is, the more unobjectionable the title, the more objectionable the content. Two well-known examples are the “PATRIOT Act” and the “Access to Affordable and Quality Care Act.”
Another great example is the Violence Against Women Act. Passed in 1994, the Violence Against Women Act provides federal grants to, and imposes federal mandates on, state and local governments with the goal of increasing arrests, prosecutions, and convictions of those who commit domestic violence.
Like most federal laws, the Violence Against Women Act is unconstitutional. The Constitution limits federal jurisdiction to three crimes: counterfeiting, treason, and piracy. All other crimes — including domestic violence — are strictly state and local matters.
The law also forbids anyone subject to a restraining order obtained by a spouse or a domestic partner from owning a gun. This is a blatant violation of the Second Amendment’s prohibition on federal laws denying anyone the right to own a gun. Whether someone subject to a restraining order, or convicted of a violent crime, should lose their rights to own firearms is a question to be decided by state and local officials.
At least the current law requires individuals receive due process before the government can deprive them of their Second Amendment rights. The House of Representatives recently passed legislation reauthorizing and making changes to the Violence Against Women Act. The most disturbing part of this “upgrade” gives government the power to take away an individual’s Second Amendment rights based solely on an allegation that the individual committed an act of domestic violence. The accused then loses Second Amendment rights without even having an opportunity to tell their side of the story to a judge.
This is a version of “red flag” laws that are becoming increasingly popular. Red flag laws are not just supported by authoritarians like Senators Diane Feinstein and Lindsey Graham, but by alleged “constitutional conservatives” like Sen. Ted Cruz.
Red flag laws have led to dangerous confrontations between law enforcement and citizens who assumed that those breaking into their property to take their guns are private, rather than government, thieves.
The House bill also expands red flag laws to cover those accused of “misdemeanor stalking.” Many jurisdictions define misdemeanor stalking to include “cyber” or online stalking. These means someone could lose Second Amendment rights for sending someone an “offensive” Facebook or Twitter message.
Forbidding someone from owning a firearm because of offensive social media posts sets a precedent that could be used to impose legal sanctions on those posting “hate speech.” Since hate speech is defined as “speech I don’t agree with,” this could lead to the de facto outlawing of free speech online.
Instead of addressing concerns over the inclusion of new red flag type laws in the Violence Against Women’s Act, proponents of the bill have smeared their critics as not caring about domestic violence. As Reason magazine senior editor Jacob Sullum has pointed out, these progressives sound like neoconservatives who smear PATRIOT Act opponents as allies of Al Qaeda.
All decent people oppose domestic violence and terrorism. However, the desire to catch and punish wrongdoers does not justify violating the Constitution or denying anyone due process. When government violates the rights of anyone it threatens the liberties of everyone.
Copyright © 2019 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given. Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Aleksandar37
Well-known member
Look at Trump making America great again everywhere else except America. Now everybody can fund terrorism! It's like a kickstarter for middle east violence.
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
ax1
Legend
Funny this is taking place in Bahrain as the moderating host country where Amber Lyon of CNN was threatened by her own employer to have her health care benefits stripped away and then fired for trying to cover genocide being committed by the Bahraini government on their own people.
Nice job Dump you war mongering genocidalist regime supporting peace of Dump, hope you win that Peace-a-Crap Prize because awarding blood baths is all that "Prize" represents as of late.
Aleksandar37
Well-known member
He's not being honest about the "boyfriend loophole," as they are calling it. Nobody is getting guns taken away from them just because of some offensive tweets or facebook posts. That's like comparing randomly swearing in public versus telling somebody directly and repeatedly that you're going to kill them. It's not a black and white issue at all, but both sides are going to extremes as usual.
Aleksandar37
Well-known member
Aleksandar37
Well-known member
Oh boy, Trump is having quite the week. If these go through, make sure we're understanding when other countries do the same to us.
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
ax1
Legend
He didnt say people are already getting their guns taken away just over offensive tweets, but rather that it was a part of the new house bill they just passed adding/updating to the act. Im not an expert on how this works, but would the Senate have to also sign off on it and then hit the dictator's desk? I havent had time to research and confirm the bill that was just passed in the house as of now.
ax1
Legend
What a real winner. Wonder if he would even pardon someone who couldnt find a public stall in NYC and peed on the side of his building and couldnt afford to pay the ticket?
Aleksandar37
Well-known member
No, I know. And it's good to throw out scenarios to test how a law might get exploited, but he doesn't really say that's what he's doing. He seems to be presenting it as what is going to happen.
Yeah, this is where it's at now. Probably just going to sit in the Senate Invalid Link Removed
Aleksandar37
Well-known member
ax1
Legend
Noooo!!!! ROFL!! Not me, just coming up with a hypothetical scenario trying to poke fun at President Hungry Hippo because he is a hypocrite with no ethical integrity.
I dunno why this came up in my head, but check out Beijing, Ive seen at least 6 times mothers holding their babies over a public garbage can having them shyt and pee out in the open in tourist areas, lol!!!!!!!
Aleksandar37
Well-known member
Oh lmao. I thought you were making a joke that it happened to you. I remember being in San Diego about a decade ago, very early, peaceful morning, walking over to the convention center for a conference. I took a shortcut through an outdoor mall only to see a homeless woman squatting in the middle, taking a huge dump. There were several other people around and she couldn't have cared less.
Aleksandar37
Well-known member
I don't think it's standard for rulings that affect one person. I think it's more common for rulings that affect larger groups, like the gay marriage bans or the travel bans. His lawyers can file an appeal immediately though.
thebigt
Legend
isn't a immediate appeal worthless in this case...once the ruling was made it goes into effect, right?
Aleksandar37
Well-known member
Not really because they're going to drag their feet on releasing the records and the next court will make a decision one way or the other fairly quickly. However, the appeals court that it's going to is run by Judge Garland...the judge who was supposed to be on the Supreme Court as a pick by Obama, but who got screwed by the Republicans because they refused to fill the seat until after the election. Honestly though the law is pretty clear that it should be handed over even though I don't necessarily agree with it.
thebigt
Legend
one way or another the dems will get what they want...if not legally then by leaking.
if trump has anything to hide he should get in front of it...funny how the times reported on those leaked returns as a newsflash when trump had talked about his huge losses before.
lots of bad precedent being set, imo….just like the harry reid nuclear vote, the dems might have this stuff come back and bite them on the ass.
ax1
Legend
I knew he talked about on his show how he had hard times and lost alot of money.
I really didnt even get what the big deal was about losing a billion dollars in a multi-billion company. So they had struggles at a point, they are still standing. General people think about how that would look stuffed in their wallet and look at it as a astronomical fortune, but in Dump's game it is really just a big recoverable chunk of cash. End of day they are just trying really hard to create something out of nothing.
This is all hyped by those "Dump inherited daddy's money" people who most likely would all be broke within a few years if they inherited the same amount, lol
Anyways Dump sucks azz but I call everything the way I see it.
Last edited:
justhere4comm
Banned
Trump paid many people 20 cents on the dollar after work was done because he's a piece of garbage. People lost their businesses as he had a lawyer that would keep them in court until they ran out of money. The little guy was stepped on, and I hope to god he gets his due for what he's done to people.
It's a shame he is President and we all have to learn about his lack of morals; ethics, etc.
Justice will be served if there is any.
"Hard times"
He lost 1,000,000,000 a year for 10 years. Maybe he should actually have a business that succeeded? and paid his subcontractors and employees...
- Trump Vodka
- Trump Steaks
- Trump Airlines
- Trump Water
- Trump University (Not really a University, it was a scam)
- Trump Mortgage
- Trump "The Game"
- Trump Travel
- Trump Casino... His casino FAILED...
Do I have to continue with his failures?
Hard times? He's a moron with money.
Nobody but Deuche Bank would lend him money. Why is that?
Hard times?
I'm surprised anyone still supports this unethical 'man' lacking any character.
If the answer is because he bothers people you dislike... That makes you just like him.
It's a shame he is President and we all have to learn about his lack of morals; ethics, etc.
Justice will be served if there is any.
"Hard times"
He lost 1,000,000,000 a year for 10 years. Maybe he should actually have a business that succeeded? and paid his subcontractors and employees...
- Trump Vodka
- Trump Steaks
- Trump Airlines
- Trump Water
- Trump University (Not really a University, it was a scam)
- Trump Mortgage
- Trump "The Game"
- Trump Travel
- Trump Casino... His casino FAILED...
Do I have to continue with his failures?
Hard times? He's a moron with money.
Nobody but Deuche Bank would lend him money. Why is that?
Hard times?
I'm surprised anyone still supports this unethical 'man' lacking any character.
If the answer is because he bothers people you dislike... That makes you just like him.
Aleksandar37
Well-known member
I doubt he's going to stick around the area
thebigt
Legend
lots of ex-military in terre haute, lots!!!
my take on it is the guy did 17 out of 20 and probation/parole will be closely monitored, he is going to get into trouble again just like OJ would be my guess.... I get more upset when someone commits 1st degree, premeditated murder and pleads guilty to manslaughter, then gets out in 7 or less.
Aleksandar37
Well-known member
He's military too lol. But yeah, I don't see him going on to live a long life as a regular person somewhere. More than likely they'll catch him trying to get back.
thebigt
Legend
yup...we definitely agree on that.
Aleksandar37
Well-known member
Trump spreading his socialism all across the land
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Aleksandar37
Well-known member
ax1
Legend
When I was in high school we had a 90 proof substitute teacher who always has a bottle in his briefcase and he used to hand out Pall Mall cigarettes to any student that asked! We all heard a few years later after high school he had 1 1/2 lungs removed (is that even possible???.) Seen him at the post office a year ago cant believe he is still alive and not walking around with a tank on wheels.
nostrum420
Well-known member
Even when I was a smoker, I found Pall Malls nauseating.
ax1
Legend
Yeah I agree, and he was giving out the non-filters to be specific.
thebigt
Legend
and yet democrats want 16 year olds to vote...isn't it ironic
they get enough 16/17 year olds to vote along with current 18 year olds they could control school board elections....2 day school week and pizza on menu everyday.
where were these democrats when was 16, lol.
Last edited:
nostrum420
Well-known member
Oh, relax. The 18yos hardly show up and IF this ever goes through, there'll be like a dozen teens in each state voting. If young people actually voted we'd definitely have a Dem in the WH right now, most likely it would have been Bernie.
That being said, I'm in favor of leaving it at 18. If you're legally an adult, you should be able to vote, if not, then no.
thebigt
Legend
wait a minute...didn't chief justice Roberts say there are no politics in the judiciary?
ax1
Legend
It wouldnt be Bernie because he already had the election stolen from him in the first place by the DNC who didnt want "that jew" to beat Hitlery, and CiaNN also had in hand to meddle with the election in favor of Hitlery.
Aleksandar37
Well-known member
He's probably told a person or two that Santa Claus exists as well lol. I don't think it's political if somebody said you and all your colleagues were liars and biased and then expected you to be fair when they needed you. That's simply getting what you deserve.
thebigt
Legend
wanna bet? you let 16 year olds know they can vote for school board and influence policies I bet they will show up as a majority, lol.
thebigt
Legend
but I am not in the judiciary, aren't they to be held to a higher standard...I think this is what roberts was implying.
ax1
Legend
Lets not forget too the fact that Demicans dont even believe in Democracy since the Super-delegates decides on the front runner and not the voters.
Go on twitter and video game chat rooms that they are giving out free pokemon toys on the way out of the polling stations///dun
Go on twitter and video game chat rooms that they are giving out free pokemon toys on the way out of the polling stations///dun
Aleksandar37
Well-known member
Right, because Democrats are the only ones that lie. Let's look at Trump just yesterday with his completely spontaneous talk that he had a sign already for. Or should we talk about how the Republicans scare voters by tricking them into thinking Democrats want socialism, but then participate in socialism...another $16 billion for rotting crops because Trump can't make a deal.
Aleksandar37
Well-known member
People will die before I give that up. Anybody that doesn't get that it's satire is too stupid to live.
Aleksandar37
Well-known member
No, I know what he's saying. I was talking about Trump and judges, not you.
thebigt
Legend
perception is everything...I don't like democrats, you don't like trump.
if roles were reversed I have no doubt you could make a strong argument for trump.
thebigt
Legend
daggone democrats...one of funniest movies ever. it actually makes racism look stupid. the hero overcomes racism and in the end everyone loves him-I guess democrats don't like happy endings!!!
Aleksandar37
Well-known member
What do you mean roles reversed?
thebigt
Legend
YOU like trump, lol....imagine that. but I am positive you could make a strong case-I have trust in your abilities