One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: Morgan
Page: <<prev 1 ... 728 729 730 731 732 next>>
Jun 22, 2016 08:50:35   #
Loki wrote:
Here is a partial, I repeat, PARTIAL list of the seemingly endless abuses of power by the BATFE. It ranks with the IRS for ignoring laws, violating civil rights, and doing so with impunity. These people routinely commit worse crimes than the ones they prosecute. You want to trust a bunch of idiots who "lost" more than 2500 guns to Mexican dope cartels?
I have a lot of respect for law enforcement. My old man was a cop. I was an MP. I have absolutely NO respect for an agency as corrupt and incompetent as the BATFE.
Do not try to play stupid little games with me. You seem to be one of those people who worship at the altar of AUTHORITY, who feel that some dipstick bureaucrat, unelected and practically unaccountable can be trusted to do anything more important than change the newspaper in the birdcage. Your version of AUTHORITY is all-powerful, omniscient, and somehow completely benevolent, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. Here is the link I mentioned.

http://elfie.org/~croaker/individ.html

Do not try to equate my disdain for bureaucrats with a desire to see law enforcement privatized. Your comment makes no sense whatsoever. I have yet to see you furnish a single cite or source for YOUR claims.
Here is a partial, I repeat, PARTIAL list of the s... (show quote)


I haven't "Claimed " anything so far that I need to site, when I do I will, just trying to have a conversation. Rather it is you making claims. I'm only going by your responses if I'm wrong simply clarify as you just have and I now have a better understanding of your stance. I'm not a game player, I like things straight up. Just as you are incorrect pertaining to me and authority, I do respect the law, and I also find many are ridiculous and should be thrown out. I also believe the power should be the people and our representatives work for us. I also don't like corruption as much as you and feel that is where our efforts should lie an not attacking each other. I will now check out you link.
Go to
Jun 22, 2016 08:24:34   #
Loki wrote:
Enforcing the laws we already have, rather than calling for still more that won't be enforced either, would be a start. This would involve a lot of overpaid, underbrained bureaucratic pond scum getting real jobs.


I may agree with you here, we need to enforce the laws we have. It should not involve anyone being overpaid, I am a proponent of if you can't do the job you have to go. In this life the hard facts are we are all replaceable.
Go to
Jun 22, 2016 08:15:00   #
mcmlx wrote:
The Cambridge Dictionary seems to explain it best:
Tyranny. Unlimited authority or use of power; or a government which exercises such power without any control or limits.
Black man? How about a white woman?
How about the whole government that is hell bent on controlling what I drive, what I eat, how I cool and heat my home, and mostly, taking thirty percent of my hard earned wages in taxes to spend as it pleases. And if I buck the system, said government will put me in a cage....or a FEMA camp.
The Cambridge Dictionary seems to explain it best:... (show quote)


How is the government controlling what you drive, eat or heat your home? I don't fear our government, our governmental system is one of the greatest in the world thanks to people as Thomas Jefferson and others, what I fear are those who corrupt the system, that can be anyone from lobbyists, corporations and our own elected official representatives, who are more interested in their own self interests than our people and country.

When I see people who say their main goal is to make our president a lame duck, at a time of crisis, I see him as an employee of the government to corrupt our system, and certainly not in the best interest of the country.

When I see a candidate loosing an election by voter manipulation, more corruption of the system.

When I see the majority of US citizens wanting changes in gun laws and nothing is voted in, I see corruption in the system.

Tranny presently is not the government, it is in who is trying to control it.
Go to
Jun 21, 2016 23:30:31   #
Loki wrote:
We already have a list like that. It's called convicted felons and domestic abusers. They are prohibited from purchasing firearms. In 2014, more than 76,000, (yes, THOUSAND ) people were flagged for attempting to purchase a firearm. While a lot of these were false flags, a lot were not. The government you trust with these "terror watch lists" prosecuted less than 100 of these cases, and got less than 30 (I think it was 27 ) convictions. Yet you want these morons to crap all over the Second, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments for some kind of "gun control." That's like a cop giving you a ticket because he thinks you're considering running a stop sign. What we need are professional law enforcement, instead of these Goddamn DHS and BATFE fucking cowboys, to enforce the laws we already have.
We already have a list like that. It's called conv... (show quote)




Now you're talking about private law enforcement? it's amazing the lack of respect you have for law enforcement and government, especially when so many are x military. Maybe you feel all our military should be privatized also, along with DOT, the education system, all public works, is that right? That's not going back to any country I know.
Go to
Jun 21, 2016 23:19:53   #
Super Dave wrote:
That assumes the Obama administration grows ethics.


Them following a procedure with guidelines really has nothing to do with Obama.
Go to
Jun 21, 2016 23:16:31   #
lpnmajor wrote:
The simple answer is; nothing - except Democrats want it. Now, had Obama and/or the Democrats called for open carry Nation wide, the GOP would have come out swinging against it - because they feel they have to.

To be fair, the Democrats act the same stupid way. If a Republican called for clean water, the Democrats would introduce a bill repealing the clean water act.

I swear, every time I see the Congress in action, I have to make sure I haven't gotten onto the kindergarten channel by mistake.
The simple answer is; nothing - except Democrats w... (show quote)




True and I agree, it's like watching a divorce couple go at it, looks like we need mediators. We have to have some flexibility and compromise to get at least somethings done.
Go to
Jun 21, 2016 21:37:38   #
Hemiman wrote:
You're last sentence,how would you go about doing that?


Like you say make sure the people who do the evaluating, check on the merit and credibility of the people being accused... false accusations should be punishable. Put a real effort into the list.
Go to
Jun 21, 2016 18:02:04   #
Super Dave wrote:
1. It gives the admin unilateral power to revoke the Bill of Rights. Can those on the list be denied any other constitutionally guaranteed rights? Speech? Lawyer? Privacy?

2. If someone is too dangerous to fly or own a gun, they should not be allowed in day cares, sports arena, shopping malls, public parks, hospitals and elementary schools without a police escort.

3. Remember the IRS targeted Conservatives already.



No offense but I think you're going over the edge here, no one is revoking the Bill of Rights and even a criminal gets a lawyer if he can't afford one and due process. What I'm seeing is people want protection but they want to tie the hands of the enforcement to do it. And if someone is a danger I sure as hell don't want him working in a daycare or school, do you? There needs to be a evaluation and than be done with it.

I see what you're saying, logic and reason must prevail and to ensure the government doesn't overstep.
Go to
Jun 21, 2016 17:39:07   #
Loki wrote:
The majority of people, apparently you also, no offense, don't realize that there are at least 25,000 US citizens on these lists. It is not "a" list, there are at least three. You can be put on this list basically on someone's unsupported word, or by mistake, and you have very little in the way of a remedy. There have been several people put on the list by mistake who have had to go to court at their own expense to clear their names. Included on this list are toddlers under the age of five, at least 2 US Marshals, a number of active duty service people who had the misfortune to have a name similar to someone else who was on the list, probably wrongfully. A nun was put on this list, as were Senator Ted Kennedy, a Georgia Congressman, and a Cub Scout.
The list compilers place more than 98% of the "recommendations" on the list. Most are unproven accusations, or mistaken identity. The standards for making this list would be thrown out of any court. How would you like to be one of the 25,000 plus innocent US citizens placed on a terror watch list, with no proof, no due process, no chance to face your accuser, and have to engage the service of an attorney at your own expense to clear your name?
Do you support a law that would be blatantly unconstitutional, because it violates the Second, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments? Do you think that inalienable rights are actually privileges to be extended or revoked at the whim of the Government du jour? Lastly, do you ACTUALLY think there are 25,000 US citizens who deserve to be on a terrorist watch list?
The majority of people, apparently you also, no of... (show quote)



Point taken, if this is what the lists consists of, maybe the list should be taken more seriously by the processors on who goes on it and have a more stringent profiling procedure. With that being said If a person would be red flagged as a danger to society to the point of not being allowed to fly a plane with others, I certainly would think that would not entitle him/her to buy a gun.

I don't believe one should have to go through expense and to clear himself, and the government should put in effort to expedite an approval.

As far as 25000, innocent people, that is only about.00008 of the population, that sounds like they're doing their job for home security.
Go to
Jun 21, 2016 09:18:47   #
buffalo wrote:
Passing all the more stringent background checks and putting everyone on a watchlist would not nor could not stop a determined criminal from getting a gun.

For ANY gun restricting laws to work, no matter how unConstitutional, criminals would need to obey them....



It isn't about putting everyone on a watch list, this is about putting suspicious people who are on a watch to wait until they are cleared.
Go to
Jun 21, 2016 08:14:51   #
Clearly with polls taken the majority of the people on both sides of the fence are for this, so why what's the problem with passing the bill?
Go to
Jun 21, 2016 08:01:34   #
Hemiman wrote:
Then you go conveniently blind when it comes to the criminal Hillary Clinton,funny how some people have 20/20 vision when it's their competition that they talk about and have a temporary bout of blindness where their knight in shining armor is concerned.


I'm not blind to anybody, I don't want to vote for either of them, just saying not to paint Trump as some kind of Sir Galahad and realistically he is probably much more dangerous in the white house as our commander in chief, than Hillary, he's an insecure Mad Hatter with a balloon for an ego who get's his little feelings hurt at the drop of a hat.
Go to
Jun 20, 2016 17:53:35   #
Big Bass wrote:
The reason you and your millions of ilk hate Trump is, because you are all going to have to get off your fat, lazy arses and actually work for a living. NO MORE FREE SHIT!!!


Guess what there Chippy most of those you're talking about are white trailer trash red necks registered republican. The people who hate Trump is due to seeing him for who he really is, and certainly not anyone to represent this country.
Go to
Jun 20, 2016 11:19:46   #
Zombiefarmer23 wrote:
And thank you, also!


If you're taking this:

This article is pure crap, feeding propaganda and lies to the fear mongers. Obama has never said anything against Christians. People who listen to Fox are manipulated and naive.

Read this:

How ironic is it that the FOX News where Sean Hannity has been howling about Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf wanting “Sharia law” to replace our existing laws is the very same FOX News whose parent company, the Rupert Murdoch controlled News Corporation, has as its second largest shareholder Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal?

Prince Alwaleed’s uncle, King Abdullah, actually rules Saudi Arabia under Sharia law. Prince Alwaleed, who is reported to enjoy a close personal relationship with Murdoch, has become so enamored of Murdoch’s media success that he is starting his own 24 hour news station, a venture dubbed the “Arabic FOX News” by Raw Story.

Where do you think Murdock's loyalty truly is? Anyone who listens to FOX is brainwashed. Murdock is an antagonist for the division of the country.



If you're taking this as relativistic... you're ridiculous. What I'm talking about is fact, no shades of grey on relativity of course unless you try to make it one in order to deny the inner workings of FOX
Go to
Jun 19, 2016 23:02:30   #
Zombiefarmer23 wrote:
Anyone want to explain the concept of relativism to the moron?


Go ahead dumbass tell me what I posted had any thing to do with the theory of relativity, I'm waiting and listening.
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 ... 728 729 730 731 732 next>>
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.