What Is It with Some on the Right Wanting to Take Rights Away from Citizens?

What Is It with Some on the Right Wanting to Take Rights Away from Citizens?
  • 512
  • 168
  • 11

My Recent Posts

Recently we've had a few articles from our local right-wingers expressing a desire to strip citizens of their right to vote.  We also had a multitude of comments supporting such a thing.  In addition I had some comments indicating a desire to "regulate" the media.

 

 I find all of this rather disconcerting.  Why would anyone want such a thing?  We fought a war with the British to gain our independence so that some monarch couldn't determine our fate.  We fought wars in the meantime to continue our independence and even fought a civil war that helped free the African slaves.  We amended our Constitution to strengthen some of our basic rights, passed laws to do even more and set up laws to help those in need.  So, again, why?

 

I think some of it has to do with fear, fear that the world is changing in ways they don't like.  The best way to stop or slow this change is to make sure those that want change can't vote.  It's the one great leveler in the United States, this ability to vote in politicians and vote others out.  The House and Senate, unlike the presidency, is at the mercy of the popular vote.  It can be gerrymandered but there are limits even to this, the same with voter suppression and onerous voter ID laws.  

 

It's very telling to me that as Republicans took supermajorities in various states they passed voter ID laws and gerrymandered districts to their liking.  Are Democrats innocent in this?  Of course not.  They've done the same but Republicans are simply the latest in all of this.  If it was up to me I'd pass laws forbidding such practices and hold both parties accountable when they do it.

 

I want citizens to vote, as many as possible, black, white, poor, rich, middle-class, Democrat, Republican, Independent, whatever.  It's the only way to make sure that our government represents all of us.    Stripping that ability from some because they receive services or because of their gender or religion only ensures the opposite.  This is wrong.

 

One of the great things that came from the Midterms was a level of diversity now added to the House.  It now represents the diversity that makes us great.  It acknowledges that gender doesn't matter, nor does religion or color.  We are all capable of great things regardless of our differences.

 

I know that what I write isn't going to change a certain authoritarian mindset I see among some of our posters.  That's not important.  I find it sad but what I would tell them is to get used to it.  You don't have the power you desire and that's a good thing.  I dread the time where someone like you does the gain the power to make this come to fruition.  This would turn us into something completely contrary to what we claim to be.

Comments

Flying Junior Added Nov 24, 2018 - 2:57pm
Spoken like a true American.

Morgoth Added Nov 24, 2018 - 3:10pm
Thanks, FJ.
Bill H. Added Nov 24, 2018 - 3:16pm
The fear on the Right is that they realize there are more voters on the Left based not only on the winning numbers of Democrat votes during the 2016 election, but even more so during the midterms. So be their desire to try and limit the number of voters who may vote Democrat or some other party than Republican.
Trump will end up being the ruination of the Republican party, along with being a good lesson to all (most) of us on how we could end up as a Banana Republic Dictatorship.
Morgoth Added Nov 24, 2018 - 3:17pm
Good, Bill.  The Republican Party needs a timeout.
John Minehan Added Nov 24, 2018 - 3:49pm
Voting was important enough that it is the heart of the 15th Amendment.  Hardly makes sense to limit the franchise now,
Liberal1 Added Nov 24, 2018 - 3:52pm
It always amazes me when the same people who go on endlessly about "Founders" and protecting the Constitution are the same ones who go on endlessly about trying to keep the same guaranteed Constitutional rights away from people who don't agree with their agenda.
 
It also bears mentioning that it isn't only Republicans that try to silence their opposition.  Both major parties are equal culpable, they just go about it differently.
John Minehan Added Nov 24, 2018 - 4:00pm
Well, we initially needed the Fifteenth Amendment to combat Democratic voter suppression efforts during Reconstruction.
 
Everyone takes their turn. 
Ryan Messano Added Nov 24, 2018 - 4:00pm
Knowledge is power, Jeffrey,
and the left craves the latter while being nearly bereft of the former.
 
We don’t want a total democracy.  All of you on the left barely know anything about the Constitution or Founders at all.  So, you have little to reference when you vote.  As such, you are easily played by the lamestream media and liberal schools.  WeedParty is a great example.  This poor deluded nitwit is honestly convinced in his paranoid comprehension, heavily influenced by the media, that I’m a threat to start a shootout.   So, this deceived man follows SOTS example and reports me to the FBI. People with poor critical thinking skills like him ought not to be allowed to vote.
 
Also, the left loves cultural Marxism, and judge on color, not character.  Just because someone has aberrant sexual choices, happens to be any race, or any gender, does not make them fit for public office.
 
90% of You Democrat voters can’t name five biographies of Americas Founders, or even the nine SCOTUS justices.  Occasional Cortex butchered the three branches of government.  She’s not alone.  60% of Americans have no clue about the three branches of government.
 
I love INFORMED voters voting, not corrupt and uninformed ones who keep giving us corrupt politicians and laws.
Morgoth Added Nov 24, 2018 - 4:04pm
Very true, John.  I noted it.
Ryan Messano Added Nov 24, 2018 - 4:08pm
Not one liberal on here can intelligently discuss the Founders, the spirit of the Constitution, and how government works best when there is small government,  low taxation, and low regulation.
Morgoth Added Nov 24, 2018 - 4:11pm
“Knowledge is power, Jeffrey,
and the left craves the latter while being nearly bereft of the former.”
 
Yet the right voted in one of the least knowledgeable presidents in history.  Very telling.
 
“We don’t want a total democracy.”
 
I know you don’t.  What you want is a miserable little theocracy where people that don’t meet your standards do what they are told.  Those that don’t wind up in concentration camps because that is the Nazi way.
 
“All of you on the left barely know anything about the Constitution or Founders at all.”
 
LOL, yeah, I know, Ryan.  We don’t agree with you therefore you want us all kicked out.
 
 
Dino Manalis Added Nov 24, 2018 - 4:19pm
 All citizens should vote, it's fundamental!
Liberal1 Added Nov 24, 2018 - 4:25pm
"We don’t want a total democracy."
 
Ryan, I don't think it is grammatically correct to use the plural "We" when you should be using the singular "I"...  well, unless you are a King or a Queen.  Are you a queen, Ryan? 
Gerrilea Added Nov 24, 2018 - 4:34pm
Hypocrisy.  What about the right to keep and bear arms?  You guys want to ban "assault" rifles, you want to tie that right to arbitrary "mental" assessments and many have said they want the Constitution amended so that you can ban them outright.  Not including the suggestions that you ban ammo, etc, etc, etc.
 
We fought that revolutionary war with "arms" so that future generations that became Americans would have freedom to rule themselves.
 
Some that claim they are on the "right" are beyond Stalin when it comes to their desires to stop women from voting.
 
What became clear in 2001 and forward was that we have problems with the legitimacy of our election system.  Gerrymandering is the 1st problem. Then the Diebold equipment owned by foreign corporations. Then illegal voting.
 
The final issue, illegal voting, is a hot-button for many of us. What happened in this past election in Georgia, Arizona and especially Florida reveals the scam.
 
Ballots were left in a rental car? Ballots being loaded from a private vehicle to an official cargo van?  Election workers denying citizens the RIGHT to see them count the damn votes?
 
You bitch that you're offended by many demanding we present valid ID that establishes your citizenship to vote in OUR elections?
 
Pshaw!
 
Did we fight that revolutionary war so that people whom have no LEGAL authority to be here can vote? IN what reality is that even remotely acceptable?
 
If you want me to believe the results of our election, then let's clean it up.  Verifiable paper trails, with open source programming using American owned & operated equipment. Videotaped chain of custody for all ballots cast. Videotape of all ballots when the boxes are opened and counted. Valid ID that establishes your AMERICAN citizenship and lawful right to cast a ballot in our elections.  This would end the 2-party system. We wouldn't need to "register", legal citizens can vote in any election with proof of residency.
 
As for Gerrymandering, that'd take a Constitutional Amendment.
 
 
 
John Howard Added Nov 24, 2018 - 4:35pm
While I agree with our author that everyone who wants to should have the option of voting, I have reasons to not bother:
 
1)  There is (usually) no one worth voting for
2)  I remain completely unconvinced that elections are honest
3)  Even if Saint Honest was elected,  he would not be allowed to do anything that the permanent government disapproved of
4)  My vote counts for so little that unless there was at least a small chance that it would make a difference, it would be futile to waste time that could be invested in a productive nap.
 
Bumper sticker:  No time to vote - have to go buy popcorn.
 
Further, to specifically answer our author's title question:
Those on the right suffer from the same power lust that those on the left do.
Morgoth Added Nov 24, 2018 - 5:58pm
@Gerrilea:
”Hypocrisy.  What about the right to keep and bear arms?”
 
Where did I say I wanted to do anything with this?
 
“You guys want to ban "assault" rifles,”
 
I think reasonable regulations regarding these weapons are in order.
 
“you want to tie that right to arbitrary "mental" assessments”
 
Why can’t deadly weapons come under some type of reasonable test?  Why do we want mentally unstable people owning deadly weapons?
 
 
“Some that claim they are on the "right" are beyond Stalin when it comes to their desires to stop women from voting.”
 
Hey, I completely disagree with that.  Don’t lump me in with Ryan.
 
 
“The final issue, illegal voting, is a hot-button for many of us. What happened in this past election in Georgia, Arizona and especially Florida reveals the scam.”
 
It’s a load of horseshit.  There’s no widespread issue of illegal voting.
 
 
“You bitch that you're offended by many demanding we present valid ID that establishes your citizenship to vote in OUR elections?”
 
Here’s my solution:
Free ID’s that allow citizens to vote.  There, easy peasy.
 
“Did we fight that revolutionary war so that people whom have no LEGAL authority to be here can vote?”
 
No.  You are blowing it out of proportion.
 
 
“If you want me to believe the results of our election, then let's clean it up.  Verifiable paper trails, with open source programming using American owned & operated equipment. Videotaped chain of custody for all ballots cast. Videotape of all ballots when the boxes are opened and counted. Valid ID that establishes your AMERICAN citizenship and lawful right to cast a ballot in our elections.  This would end the 2-party system. We wouldn't need to "register", legal citizens can vote in any election with proof of residency.”
 
Works for me.
 
Morgoth Added Nov 24, 2018 - 6:00pm
@John Howard
 
You can do as you wish, vote or not as you please.  However I say those that don’t vote shouldn’t bitch about the result.  
Morgoth Added Nov 24, 2018 - 9:05pm
@Mogg Tsur:
”People who don't vote, Kelly likely are doing a very wise thing.”
 
Well, then, that should make you happy and you don’t even need to take away their right to vote.  
 
“If they are not committed to earnest participation in self government voting just to please the likes of you is more damaging than refraining.”
 
What I want them to do is get educated and vote.  
 
“At the same time, what logic supports that one who chooses not to vote should not complain?”
 
Because you made a choice,  By not voting you say you are not concerned about the result.  As this is the case the result, any result, should be fine by you.  Therefore don’t complain, you didn’t care about the result.
 
“If I cannot find a candidate on the ballot who earns my trust and confidence I may not vote at all but knowing that doesn't it make perfect sense that I would complain despite who won the race?”
 
No because your next choice is to vote for the candidate that comes closest to what you believe in.  By not choosing you made a choice.  Your choice is you didn’t care who won so own that choice.  
 
 
 
“I've already said I don't approve of any among them and now it is important to the discussion that I continue my objections and offer my reasons that in the future, we don't get fooled again!”
 
Sorry.  By not choosing you state you don’t care who won.  Next time make a choice.
 
“Life in the box is telling on you, Jeffrey.”
 
Nope.  I’m big on taking responsibility.  If I choose not to vote then I say I don’t care.  If I decide I don’t care then why should I whine?
 
 
Ken Added Nov 24, 2018 - 9:39pm
I think reasonable regulations regarding these weapons are in order
 
You can't even define what an "assault rifle" is.  It is an ambiguous ter to describe what "scary looking semi automatic rifles" should be banned. 
 
What about assault knives?  Any knife used in an assault would be classified as such.
 
What part of "shall not be infringed" is confusing?
Ken Added Nov 24, 2018 - 9:42pm
Other than Messano coming back here and flaming about women voting, I haven't seen anyone against "counting all legal votes".  Not requiring voter ID disenfranchises legal voters which is why so many people of all ethnicities and demographics favor this.  Same with cleaning up voter roles which Democrats also fight.
 
We have seen the videos of the corrupt poll workers in Texas and California and other areas allowing illegals to vote.  THAT is what we disagree with, not taking away the right to vote of legal citizens who have that right.
Ryan Messano Added Nov 24, 2018 - 9:59pm
It doesn’t matter who legally votes, Ken, when the backbone of national stability, the family and church are in Ruins because of women adopting a sphere, namely voting, that nature and nature’s God, never fitted her for.
Morgoth Added Nov 24, 2018 - 10:40pm
Actually, Ken, I also had this one in mind:
Not Just Ryan
 
It’s also an extension of some conversations I’ve had with some of the posters here like Riley, Mogg Tsur and Tamara.
 
Ryan’s a religious loon but his article got some traction and a lot of agreement.  Look at the comments, Ken.
 
Morgoth Added Nov 24, 2018 - 10:51pm
@Ken:
”You can't even define what an "assault rifle" is.  It is an ambiguous ter to describe what "scary looking semi automatic rifles" should be banned.”
 
Where, exactly, did I say anything about banning them?  I’m a reasonable fellow, I said reasonable regulations.


 
 
 
Gerrilea Added Nov 24, 2018 - 11:18pm
Jeffrey K---It seems we're in agreement, mostly...except for this:
 
I think reasonable regulations regarding these weapons are in order.

Why can’t deadly weapons come under some type of reasonable test?  Why do we want mentally unstable people owning deadly weapons?
 
No one said we'd like mentally unstable people from owning weapons, I'm of the opinion all firearms are deadly it doesn't matter what they look like.
 
And the dangerous part that you can't seem to grasp is that when you put arbitrary conditions upon the exercise of a right, then ALL rights are subject to the same "procedures".....like voting.
 
It seriously give credence to Ryan M's absurd beliefs that women shouldn't vote. Why's that?  Tell me how many women whom were ever pregnant weren't emotional train-wrecks during at least the 1st trimester?  Or women when they are having their period?  
 
We have evidence here in NY State, once they passed the "Safe Act" they went after people whom had once taken Zantac, a guy here in Buffalo made national news because of it.  They came for his guns because of a prescription.
 
Our NYS Legislature called their law, "reasonable", by the way.
 
So, would you like to see people go through mental evaluations and have the results made publicly available BEFORE they are allowed to vote?
 
And be clear, you aren't "regulating the weapon", you're installing procedures to abrogate the rights of Americans to deny as many as a possible from exercising said.
 
What makes your position any less vulgar than the Ryan M's or the antics of legislatures in denying rights of convicted criminals?
 
I'll make this clear, voting is more dangerous than a firearm.
 
The Tyranny of The Majority, Alexis de Tocqueville:
 
"If ever the free institutions of America are destroyed, that event may be attributed to the omnipotence of the majority, which may at some future time urge the minorities to desperation and oblige them to have recourse to physical force. Anarchy will then be the result, but it will have been brought about by despotism.
 
Mr. Madison expresses the same opinion in The Federalist, No. 51. "It is of great importance in a republic, not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been, and ever will be, pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit."
 
Try to understand what I'm saying here, truly.  The masses are easily led to their own slaughter.  When you vote to deny others their rights, are we not all less free? Without a bullet fired.
 
Yes.
Flying Junior Added Nov 25, 2018 - 1:02am
No one said we'd like mentally unstable people from owning weapons, I'm of the opinion all firearms are deadly it doesn't matter what they look like.
 
Whaa?  Word salad.  Meaning unclear.





opher goodwin Added Nov 25, 2018 - 3:57am
Jeffrey - it seems ironic that those who shout the loudest about their own rights are the very ones that wish to deny rights to others - whether that is the right to vote, to choose their sexuality, to have the right to an abortion, freedom of travel, freedom of religion, freedom of clothing, even healthcare and disability care.
Stone-Eater Added Nov 25, 2018 - 7:15am
Jeffrey
 
Sounds reasonable. But try to get the simpletons out of their right-left drawer thinking. IMPOSSIBLE.
John Minehan Added Nov 25, 2018 - 8:53am
The other fellow raised an issue with voting age.
 
It was changed in 1972 . . . and it did not lead to a McGovern landslide (to say the least).
 
You can make a good faith argument for changing it (we have, for example, raised the legal drinking age since the 1980s for many of the reasons he  cited), but I can't see the law changing.
  
 He also seems to make a distinction between a "Free Press" and the "Media," but I think it is a distinction without a difference at best.
 
The "corporate media" exists but (with the demise of "narrowcasting") there are a lot more sources available of both news and opinion. 
 
If people want to be informed, they can be.
 
Alternatively, if they want to stay in the echo-chamber of their choosing, they can do that more easily now too.
 
I would say that being informed and voting (and, yes, ringing a few doorbells or making a few phone calls) is one of the duties of a citizen in a republic. 
 
On the other hand, I am leery of the state compelling anyone to do any of the above or restricting them from doing any of the above.
 
"I trust I make myself obscure."   

 
John Minehan Added Nov 25, 2018 - 9:14am
An "assault rifle" is a shoulder fired, selective fire weapon using a rifle cartridge.  The first of the type was the MP-43 Sturmgewehr  and contemporary examples include: the AK-47/AK-74; M-16/M-4; FNLN; and H&K G-3.
 
It is worth noting that "selective fire" is part of the definition of an "assault rifle" but they are NOT always used for automatic fire, unlike most submachine guns (like the MP-38, M-3, Carl Gustav or Uzi).
 
Additionally, magazine-feed semi-automatic rifles such as the M-1, predate assault rifles and some early assault rifles (like the FNLN) were not all selective fire.  Such weapons are sometimes referred to as "Battle Rifles."  
John Minehan Added Nov 25, 2018 - 9:16am
Not sure how I double-posted that.  Also, a submachine gun uses a pistol cartridge. 
Koshersalaami Added Nov 25, 2018 - 11:14am
“If you want me to believe the results of our election, then let's clean it up.  Verifiable paper trails, with open source programming using American owned & operated equipment. Videotaped chain of custody for all ballots cast. Videotape of all ballots when the boxes are opened and counted”
 
As a liberal Democrat, I support this statement 100%. I have no objection to losing an election if it’s a fair election. I want my vote counted, not the ability to dictate like Ryan does. 
 
Bernie Sanders is not in favor of the same degree of gun control that most Democrats are. And assault weapons per se are not the problem. The biggest problem is that we don’t license shooters like we license drivers. The fact that we don’t is particularly odd given that the organization that provides all those safety classes is the NRA. No one should be operating firearms who doesn’t understand that firearms belong in one gun safe and ammo belongs in another, particularly if you have people in the house who shouldn’t be shooting, like happened in the Newtown case. 
 
The second problem is background checks, which should be required any time a firearm changes hands. The only way we can keep the mentally ill and convicted  violent felons away from firearms is to check when they buy them wherever they buy them. 
 
We should treat guns a lot like we treat cars. No one in their right mind can look at car ownership in the United States and claim that we are anti-car because of these operator certification and vehicle registration requirements. They’re both public safety issues. 
 
The argument will be presented that criminals will still have access to firearms. (So will everyone else.) That’s like saying we shouldn’t prohibit murder because we still have murders in spite of our prohibitions. Laws don’t eliminate crimes, they reduce them. 
 
Regarding “how government works best when there is small government, low taxation, and low regulation”: I don’t agree that it does. For a variety of reasons mainly having to do with exploding technology and exploding populations, our world is immeasurably more complex than that of the Founders. When more things can hurt the public, more things need regulating. When more things need regulating, more people have to track that. 
 
This is not because I like government as a solution, it’s because there are a lot of areas the private sector doesn’t handle well and so someone has to do it. The private sector is, for a variety of reasons, lousy at self-regulating. I like clean air, clean water, safe cars, safe circuits in my house, safe airplanes, safe food, reliable medicines, nutrition information so I can make good decisions about my diet, appliances that don’t explode, a general population that can read, doctors and nurses who have to be qualified to work in my hospital, oil supplies that don’t pollute the entire Gulf of Mexico, and mortgage or S&L crises that don’t damned near bankrupt my country. In these last two cases, effective regulation would have been insanely cheaper than the lack of effective regulation turned out to be. 
 
During the S&L crisis of the eighties, not a single New York-based S&L went under. Why not? Because state regulations prohibited the practices that killed all those S&L’s in Texas that the rest of the country had to bail out. 
 
This “regulation is inherently bad and we’d all be better off if we didn’t have any” bullshit is exactly that. I’m not stupid enough to say that all regulation is good, but I’m also not stupid enough to say that all regulation is bad, to condemn it as a category. 
 
For all you guys who would like to see the United States as it was in the 1950’s, I suggest you look at the tax rates on the wealthy during that period. If you don’t already know, it could give you a heart attack. 
Morgoth Added Nov 25, 2018 - 11:23am
@Gerrilea:
”No one said we'd like mentally unstable people from owning weapons, I'm of the opinion all firearms are deadly it doesn't matter what they look like.”
 
Good, then we agree.


 
“And the dangerous part that you can't seem to grasp is that when you put arbitrary conditions upon the exercise of a right, then ALL rights are subject to the same "procedures".....like voting.”
 
Huh?  
 
“It seriously give credence to Ryan M's absurd beliefs that women shouldn't vote. Why's that?  Tell me how many women whom were ever pregnant weren't emotional train-wrecks during at least the 1st trimester?  Or women when they are having their period?”
 
WTF?  Um, no.  Being pregnant or on one’s period is not a mental illness.  
 
“We have evidence here in NY State, once they passed the "Safe Act" they went after people whom had once taken Zantac, a guy here in Buffalo made national news because of it.  They came for his guns because of a prescription.
 
Our NYS Legislature called their law, "reasonable", by the way.”
 
That’s absolutely fascinating but I’m going to need to know more about it.
 
“So, would you like to see people go through mental evaluations and have the results made publicly available BEFORE they are allowed to vote?”
 
No and I think you are horribly confused.  Frankly I’m not sure WTF you are talking about, you seem to be mixing two different articles up, mine and Ryan’s.
 


 
Morgoth Added Nov 25, 2018 - 11:26am
@Ryan Messano:
”It doesn’t matter who legally votes, Ken, when the backbone of national stability, the family and church are in Ruins because of women adopting a sphere, namely voting, that nature and nature’s God, never fitted her for.”
 
Spoken like a guy that needs to pay for sex.
Morgoth Added Nov 25, 2018 - 11:27am
@Opher Goodwin:
”Jeffrey - it seems ironic that those who shout the loudest about their own rights are the very ones that wish to deny rights to others - whether that is the right to vote, to choose their sexuality, to have the right to an abortion, freedom of travel, freedom of religion, freedom of clothing, even healthcare and disability care.”
 
Absolutely.  They want to restrict things to what they believe in...or not believe in.
Morgoth Added Nov 25, 2018 - 11:31am
@John Minehan:
”I would say that being informed and voting (and, yes, ringing a few doorbells or making a few phone calls) is one of the duties of a citizen in a republic.”
 
Absolutely.  But I’m not going to compel anyone to vote.  OTOH I’m not going I’m not going to deny anyone the right to vote if they decide to do so.
 
“On the other hand, I am leery of the state compelling anyone to do any of the above or restricting them from doing any of the above.”
 
Yes, completely agree.
 
"I trust I make myself obscure."   
 
Clear as mud, John.
 
:)
Morgoth Added Nov 25, 2018 - 11:33am
@Mogg Tsur:
Jeffrey Kelly, asinine reply to my rebuttal of your assertion that those who do not vote should not complain.”
 
Yeah...don’t care.  
 
“Really, you just argue to hide your ignorance.”
 
There’s that oh, so superior attitude I like, Mogg.
The Burghal Hidage Added Nov 25, 2018 - 1:32pm
Jeffrey -   Have not read through comments, just looked at your opener. This is not intended as any kind of provocation, but based on history I would likely reject your premise so, to be fair, I have not read your piece in it's entirety. I am asking you to indulge me a moment and please provide me with YOUR definition of what exactly constitutes a right winger.
John Minehan Added Nov 25, 2018 - 1:49pm
"During the S&L crisis of the eighties, not a single New York-based S&L went under. Why not? Because state regulations prohibited the practices that killed all those S&L’s in Texas that the rest of the country had to bail out."
 
Do you mean "New York chartered S&Ls," since Federally Charted S&Ls would not be subject to the NYS Banking Law?
TreeParty Added Nov 25, 2018 - 1:50pm
Good article, Jeffrey.
The right to vote is the most basic right of every citizen. It is a right, not a privilege. It is not contingent on any "duties" or "obligations" or any "tax", etc., other than the act of registration which establishes citizenship. At least four places in the Constitution is "the right" of citizens to vote declared to be inalienable; on account of race or color, of gender, of ability to pay, or of age (beyond 18). 
Every proposal to limit the right of citizens to vote is deeply un-American and contrary to the values our country stands for. 
Jeff Michka Added Nov 25, 2018 - 2:06pm
As those rightists commenting here have shown, and for reasons stated by Bill H,want to make sure voters that may not be pocket fascists like we see here, can't vote or are forced through meaningless hoops to discourage them from voting.  Note rightist 'rilla raising the rightist specter of "voter fraud", but can't prove any.  Of course, rightists didn't use this article to just talk about voting, but seems they had to deflect a baseless (there is no widespread or even narrow spread voter fraud) bunch of lies to bring up 2nd amendment speak.  Why aren't any of you mouthing lines from Orange Il Duce about voters voting, then going out and changing hats and clothes to go back and vote again.  And of course, the old crap about migrants being handed voter IDs and told to vote D so they'll get more free stuff.  These rightist twits believe these lies they've come up with as another device to scare themselves.  Real heroes.  Bsed on just this sort of crap, why should rightists expect to be allowed guns and a vote? I've gotta go pick up my paycheck from George Soros.
Morgoth Added Nov 25, 2018 - 2:29pm
@The Burghal Hidage:
”Jeffrey -   Have not read through comments, just looked at your opener.”
 
I get not reading comments but I’m not sure why you wouldn’t the article if you wanted to comment on it.  I read articles but often don’t read comments before commenting myself.  I reply to the author not the commenters.  Only on the stuff I write do I feel an obligation to read all the comments.  I may not respond to all of them but I think it’s courteous and respectful to at least read them.  
 
 
“This is not intended as any kind of provocation, but based on history I would likely reject your premise so, to be fair, I have not read your piece in it's entirety.”
 
Then I suggest you do so.  
 
“I am asking you to indulge me a moment and please provide me with YOUR definition of what exactly constitutes a right winger.”
 
That’s very wide open.  I think those on the right run from the extreme radicals like Ryan to more sensible conservatives.  That’s really no different than those I consider on the left.
 
But I consider the “right-wing” to be fiscal conservatives, strict Constitutionalists and generally religious Christians.  Now, none of those things are bad, far from it but radicals like Ryan want to impose their viewpoint to the exclusion of all others.  This means shoving their extreme Christianity and strict Constitutionalism down other people’s throats.  They feel this gives then the right to censor, regulate the media and determine who votes or who speaks.
Morgoth Added Nov 25, 2018 - 2:34pm
Now, note I said “some” in the title.  Not everyone on the right feels this way.
 
Now, to be fair, are there those on the left that take their views to the extreme? Absolutely and they repulse me just like those on the extreme right.  In spite of what I am accused of I’m not a Socialist or Communist, far from it.  I consider myself a moderate and it annoys me to no end when people tell me what I believe in.
 
In any case there you go.  No, I do not want to derail this by getting into a debate about left and right.   I will discuss it but my preference is that someone else write about it.
Gerrilea Added Nov 25, 2018 - 2:45pm
Jeffry K--- I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear.  When you put preconditions upon one right, the rest will be subject to the same, as in voting or free speech and many more.
 
You'd like to see a constitutionally protected exercise and right "regulated" like driving.  Driving is claimed to be a privilege. While I'd have no problem with mandatory safety training for use and storage BEFORE someone is allowed to use a firearm.  It can't be done under our constitution, on a federal level.  This would be the same for a federal mental health evaluation.  The States have privy.
 
As for the "Safe Act" and it's consequences. 
 
From a press release from the NYS Police:
 
"The State Police are countering Erie County Clerk Chris Jacobs’ claim that they ordered him to revoke the pistol permit of an Amherst man because of his past use of anti-anxiety medication.
 
Jacobs announced in a press release earlier today that he had been “following a recommendation” from the law enforcement agency when he revoked the permit of David Lewis, who had been medicated “at one point,” according to his attorney."
 
From the NY Times:
 
"Under the 2013 law, the reports prepared by doctors, psychologists, nurses and social workers are first sent to county officials. If they agree with the assessments, the officials then input the names into the state database. The information is retained for five years. If the authorities find a person in the database has a gun permit — necessary to purchase a handgun in New York — they are required to revoke the license and seize any guns. The people in the database are barred from obtaining a permit until their names are purged."
 

The way the law has played out, local officials said, frontline mental health workers feel compelled to routinely report mentally ill patients brought to an emergency room by the police or ambulances. County health officials are then supposed to vet each case before it is sent to Albany. But so many names are funneled to county health authorities through the system — about 500 per week statewide — that they have become, in effect, clerical workers, rubber-stamping the decisions, they said. From when the reporting requirement took effect on March 16, 2013 until Oct. 3, 41,427 reports have been made on people who have been flagged as potentially dangerous. Among these, 40,678


 
You are "reported" by someone in the ER or your Doc's office and you're on THE LIST.  The thing is, there is no recourse proscribed under said law.  You just lose you rights, period!
 
No due process, no charges, no conviction, NOTHING even remotely constitutional.
 
Postpartem Depression?  NO RIGHTS FOR YOU!
 
Finally, on this subject of rights...Both you and Ryan wish to abrogate rights of Americans. Ryan wants women denied the right to vote, you want them denied the right to defend themselves with a firearm.
 
Lindsay Wheeler Added Nov 25, 2018 - 2:47pm
I see that Jeffrey Kelly is ignorant of history. That everybody votes--is the cause of destruction. The FFofA restricted voting to only properties people. 
 
Ever go into a poor man's house, or a black's house, there Jeffrey?  How many books there?
 
ZERO
 
So we give the suffrage to all sorts of people who are ignorant!  The FFofA were well-versed in the Classics and in history. Only the propertied class had the means and the leisure to read. 
 
It is prudent and wise to restrict voting to only the propertied. 
Morgoth Added Nov 25, 2018 - 2:59pm
@Gerrilea:
Finally, ...you want them denied the right to defend themselves with a firearm.”
 
No, this is simply false.  I have no issues with those who purchase, own and use firearms.  But society has the right to protect itself from those who might cause harm with those weapons.  I favor background checks on those who purchase weapons.  If their background shows concerning information it needs to be addressed.
Morgoth Added Nov 25, 2018 - 3:06pm
@Lindsay Wheeler:
”I see that Jeffrey Kelly is ignorant of history.”
 
That’s one thing I’m not.
 
“That everybody votes--is the cause of destruction.”
 
No, it’s helped diversify this Republic.  That is a source of strength.
 
“The FFofA restricted voting to only properties people.”
 
Well, everyone makes mistakes.  Even the Founders had their faults.
 
“Ever go into a poor man's house, or a black's house, there Jeffrey?  How many books there?”
 
Yep.  Unlike you I actually deal with the real world.  I worked child welfare and welfare fraud so yeah.  But I’ve been in rich people’s homes, chuckles.  It’s the same, the toys are just more expensive.
 
“ZERO”
 
How would you know, psychotic George RR Martin?
 
“So we give the suffrage to all sorts of people who are ignorant!”
 
Like you?  There’s all types of ignorance. You are just another example.
 
 
“It is prudent and wise to restrict voting to only the propertied.”
 
Yep, just another whackadoodle attempting to impose his archaic viewpoint on the rest of us.  Grow up, it’s 2018, not 1783.
Gerrilea Added Nov 25, 2018 - 4:25pm
Jeffry--- So, you are okay with the abrogation of an individuals rights without charges, trial, judge, jury or conviction?
 
Is that you Obama???
 
We are now guilty before (or because) some may decide to exercise a right.
 
Who decides what mental illness is
 
Morgoth Added Nov 25, 2018 - 4:30pm
@Gerrilea:
”So, you are okay with the abrogation of an individuals rights without charges, trial, judge, jury or conviction?”
 
I can see that you are just going to continue to persist in this construct no matter what I say.  Why, I have no idea.  I’ve explained this.


 
target="_blank">Is that you Obama???
 
Get over it.  He hasn’t been President for two years.  Why no whining about the lesser Bush?  Or Trump?  He’s the current president...or at least a piss poor representation of one.  
 
Note I never capitalize “President” when I refer to him.  He doesn’t deserve it.
 

 


 
 
Morgoth Added Nov 25, 2018 - 5:41pm
Mogg Tsu, pickles.
Gerrilea Added Nov 25, 2018 - 6:01pm
Jeffry K-- I'm trying to show you what the results of your position will be and currently are. Bush & Cheney should be in jail for crimes against humanity and when they're done serving their life terms, they should be prosecuted for treason against the American people and summarily executed...preferably by 4-horse quartering in the town square. FYI, I voted against him (Bush) twice AND sadly I voted for Obama the first time and against Romney the second time.
 
Obama has a higher level of crime, he codified what Bush & Cheney did.  Making it possible for ALL future POTUS to execute us with the stroke of a pen.
 
Maybe you don't understand the creeping tyranny you want me to "get on board" with.
 
Here is where you go wrong:
 
 
But society has the right to protect itself from those who might cause harm with those weapons.  
 
 
Society has no rights, it never did.  Individuals possess rights that our creation is forbidden from abrogating.  There are legitimate historical reasons that our system was created into a constitutional republic.  We do not have democracy.  Invariably when "rights" are put up for a vote, minorities are always the loser.
 
As for this:
 
I favor background checks on those who purchase weapons.  
 
I'd agree if the State you live in requires it.
 
This is the problem:
 
If their background shows concerning information it needs to be addressed.
 
The proffered solution is "mental evaluations" despite the professionals stating here in New York, there is no "test" to predict future crime or crimes.
 
As for focusing on Trump, I will.  I detest his position on "gun control", he's a Democrat mixed with the worst parts of Bush/Obama when he said this:
 
"I like taking guns away early," Trump said. "Take the guns first, go through due process second."
 
He's just as batshit crazy as the rest of them. And I'd dare say, on the level of Ryan M.
 
The constitution isn't quaint and polite suggestions, it's the supreme law of this land!  And if we have no law, we have nothing less than anarchy.
 
Are you willing to destroy the very document that has created the most powerful, generous and wealthy citizens in human history?  All to obtain your "precious"???
 
I won't let you.
 
 
 
 
Ryan Messano Added Nov 25, 2018 - 6:15pm
Lindsay: I see that Jeffrey Kelly is ignorant of history. That everybody votes--is the cause of destruction. The FFofA restricted voting to only properties people. 
 
Ever go into a poor man's house, or a black's house, there Jeffrey?  How many books there?
 
ZERO
 
So we give the suffrage to all sorts of people who are ignorant!  The FFofA were well-versed in the Classics and in history. Only the propertied class had the means and the leisure to read. 
 
It is prudent and wise to restrict voting to only the propertied
 
My saying so neither detracts or adds to your comment, but for what it is worth, this is the root of the matter.  Jeffrey has already demonstrated he is a lazy thinker and doesn't want to actually learn the vision of the Founders so he can vote responsibly, so instead he imitates the demagogues on the left, and screams and shouts about rights and discrimination, not recognizing that rights are based on virtue and wisdom, and that the absence of wisdom and virtue, makes freedom and rights virtually impossible.  Ignorance and corruption are the problem.
Cullen Kehoe Added Nov 25, 2018 - 6:19pm
I don't think stripping anyone's right to vote will help the country. It's not even possible, really. 
 
I've heard arguments about why women were thought to have been represented by their fathers and husbands, prior to them getting the vote. 
 
But once upon a time, a century or more ago, women were generally thought to have been not as smart as men. We now know that's that not true...at all. 
 
Politicians of one persuasion just have to do a better job of appealing to women. The solution isn't to strip anyone's right to vote. 
 
Also, a lot of the young and poor don't vote anyway. Most national elections have about a 50% turnout. So those concerned about people on the dole voting themselves more benefits, in practice, it doesn't APPEAR to be happening (to a material effect anyway). 
Morgoth Added Nov 25, 2018 - 6:24pm
@Gerrilea:
”Are you willing to destroy the very document that has created the most powerful, generous and wealthy citizens in human history?  All to obtain your "precious"???”
 
I seriously no longer know WTF you are talking about.
Morgoth Added Nov 25, 2018 - 6:30pm
@Ryan Messano:
”Jeffrey has already demonstrated he is a lazy thinker”
 
Not really.  I do find your incessant word salad mind numbing to keep track of.
 
“and doesn't want to actually learn the vision of the Founders so he can vote responsibly,”
 
I’m game for anyone who says it’s OK to look at naked women.  Their form is a wonder to behold.
;)
 
“so instead he imitates the demagogues on the left, and screams and shouts about rights and discrimination, not recognizing that rights are based on virtue and wisdom, and that the absence of wisdom and virtue, makes freedom and rights virtually impossible.”
 
It’s like re-reading the worst book ever.  You essentially say the same thing over and over and over and over...SNORE
 
“Ignorance and corruption are the problem.”
 
Then what’s your excuse?  You are both ignorant and corrupt...or do I need to remind you out of the two of us you are the only one to ignorantly have sex with a prostituite, thereby corrupting that pathetic soul of yours?
Morgoth Added Nov 25, 2018 - 6:31pm
@Mogg Tsur:
Jeffry Kelly, Dill, sweet or bread and butter?”
 
Anything besides dill shows a serious lack in judgement.
Tamara Wilhite Added Nov 25, 2018 - 6:38pm
Every illegal vote by a non-citizen steals an American's vote.
Every act of vote fraud like intercepting mail ballots and filling them in Democrat steals delegitimizes real voters.
Every act of systemic vote fraud like showing up with hundreds of magically found mail in ballots that are all Democrat ... undermines the very institution of democracy by defrauding the public and awarding those who cheat.
That is why conservatives are in favor of voter ID that makes multiple votes and fake votes harder, and it is why Democrats want you to have to register and get permission for everything EXCEPT voting.
When you need ID to buy Sudafed, beer or spray paint, you should need it to vote.
Morgoth Added Nov 25, 2018 - 6:51pm
@Tamara Wilhite:
”Every illegal vote by a non-citizen steals an American's vote.”
 
Then it’s a good thing it’s very rare.

“Every act of vote fraud like intercepting mail ballots and filling them in Democrat steals delegitimizes real voters.”
 
Makin’ stuff up again, right, Tamara?

“Every act of systemic vote fraud like showing up with hundreds of magically found mail in ballots that are all Democrat ... undermines the very institution of democracy by defrauding the public and awarding those who cheat.”
 
Then it’s a good thing that never happens.  Lay off the Infowars and Breitbart, Tamara.  It warps the soul.

“That is why conservatives are in favor of voter ID that makes multiple votes and fake votes harder, and it is why Democrats want you to have to register and get permission for everything EXCEPT voting.”
 
Bullshit.  Hey, I say give free voter ID’s to every citizen.  You and I want the same thing, isn’t that great?


Ken Added Nov 25, 2018 - 7:23pm

Where, exactly, did I say anything about banning them?  I’m a reasonable fellow, I said reasonable regulations.
 
Reasonable is subjective.  What you consider reasonable someone else may consider unreasonable.  A law abiding citizen with no criminal history should have no restrictions upon ownership of any gun.  It is their constitutional right.  There are no "reasonable restrictions" that would prevent that.
Gerrilea Added Nov 25, 2018 - 7:24pm
Jeffry K--- Are you intentionally not following?  The constitution created our government, We The People, granted it limited authorities and denied it any authority over free speech, the practice of religion and keep and bearing arms.  The Soviets, to get rid of dissidents, would claim they were mentally unfit and therefore had no rights.  Our constitution prevents you from enacting said system here, whatever rational you employ.
 
I thought you were more historically educated. Our constitution allowed We The People to reach the stars and create wealth beyond the dreams of avarice.  What makes us unique in all of history is that we included more people and EXPANDED the rights of man.
 
Your "precious" would be gun control.  If you push for national level "mental health" qualifications, as has been instituted here in NY, I'll fight all the way.
 
Mogg T--- I don't know who the fuck you are OR what drugs you're on.  The constitution doesn't need wealthy, powerful people to correct the treason the last 4 POTUS have engaged in.  Trump is on his way to being added to that list if he pushes his idea of "gun control".
 
It took 3% of our population to start and win the revolutionary war.  It didn't take a majority to create this nation, just a few willing to fight to the death to be free.
 
Democracy, the only nation that ever had it was the Greek City-State of Athens.  Other nations attempted it like France. Spain and a slew in South America.  Each one of them devolved into tyranny and/or autocratic control....just like the United States is on the precipice of today, brought about by the actions of Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and Obama.
 
As for Trump's words on his plans for gun control...there is ONLY Black And White. That "damn piece of paper" means nothing to him. He is not a dictator but his intentions are becoming more clear.
 
Tamara W--- Thank you for being a voice of reason.
 
Morgoth Added Nov 25, 2018 - 7:46pm
@Ken:
”A law abiding citizen with no criminal history should have no restrictions upon ownership of any gun.  It is their constitutional right.  There are no "reasonable restrictions" that would prevent that.”
 
Works for me.  Background checks before purchasing guns, there’s the ticket.
Morgoth Added Nov 25, 2018 - 7:53pm
@Gerrilea:
”Are you intentionally not following?”
 
No.  I’m simply confused by your meandering across a range of subjects and thinking you are reading something that is not there.
 
“Our constitution prevents you from enacting said system here, whatever rational you employ.”
 
What I want is background checks to ensure there is nothing in said purchasers background that is concerning.  Violent crime including things like domestic violence are a concern.  Yes, mental illness is a concern, depending on the type.  
 
“I thought you were more historically educated.”
 
You bet your ass I am.
 
“Our constitution allowed We The People to reach the stars and create wealth beyond the dreams of avarice.  What makes us unique in all of history is that we included more people and EXPANDED the rights of man.”
 
Yay for us.  
 
“Your "precious" would be gun control.”
 
What?  I thought it was a Ring of Power. Damn, guessed wrong.
 

 
Ward Tipton Added Nov 26, 2018 - 12:24am
I gave up at "reasonably infringing" on that which is clearly stated "Shall not be infringed."
Gerrilea Added Nov 26, 2018 - 4:26am
Jeffry K--- You've proven that you do not know our history or our constitution and the republic it created.  What part of unalienable rights do you not understand?  Some wish to deny voting to women, you wish to ARBITRARILY deny "keeping and bearing arms" to anyone you deem "unfit". 
 
As for my "meandering", how old are you? What's your level of education? You can't keep up? 
 
Or is the reality you have no legitimate answer for your quandary?  You hypocrisy is clear and you can't defend it.
 
Mogg T--- Thank you for establishing you are nothing more than a troll. 
 
"...thanks for making it so easy to ridicule you..."
 
So, where did I define democracy as "all having a vote"???  You want slaves, children and foreigners to have the ability to vote?
 
And doesn't your petty trolling miss the points made?  Other nations experimented with democracy, AS THEY DEFINED it, and each nation eventually fell into tyranny and autocracy and dictatorships.
 
That IS the end result of every democracy in human history. Our educated founders KNEW this, that is why they debated and argued and finally came up with a document that they believed would prevent it from happening here. 
 
The citizens of New York, Virginia and 5 other founding States then moved forward to amend said document to include what was coined "a Bill of Rights".  To make clear the limits of said.
 
And you know what? I noticed you never addressed the points made about the last 4 POTUS being traitors.
 
Just like a good troll, you present red-herrings to distract.
 
This will be the last time I reply to you on this site. I've learned that feeding the trolls is a waste of electrons.
 
 
Lindsay Wheeler Added Nov 26, 2018 - 7:39am
Who put John F Kennedy into office?  Women. 
 
Women voted for Kennedy because he was handsome. That is the reason that most women voted for Kennedy!
 
Women vote for security. 
 
Women don't think like men, that is why they should not vote!  What a woman cancels out my vote?  Women voting is only the emasculation of men. Women vote their sentiments.
Gerrilea Added Nov 26, 2018 - 8:11am
Lindsay W--- I rarely reply to bigots, but I have to make an exception with this:
 
"Women don't think like men, that is why they should not vote!"
 
The problem you can't accept is that women actually think! HOW dare they!  And you bet your ass I'd voted for John Edwards in a NY minute, he was handsome, well-spoken and he said the things I wanted to hear from a candidate.  It's too bad we go Kerry instead, the ugly bastard.
 
You really went all Politically Correct on us now?  "They don't think like I do so we must ban them...err...deny them rights!"
 
 
You spew hatred and bigotry just like the regressive left does.
 
Steel Breeze Added Nov 26, 2018 - 8:46am
@JK,i commend you for making a very important distinction in you title "Some" that very few from either side make nowadays...
Morgoth Added Nov 26, 2018 - 9:34am
Thanks, Steel Breeze.  I’m careful about that kind of thing, I dislike being stereotyped and I know others do as well.
Morgoth Added Nov 26, 2018 - 9:48am
@Gerrilea:
”You've proven that you do not know our history or our constitution and the republic it created.”
 
The fuck I don’t.
 
“What part of unalienable rights notdo you not understand?”
 
What about *MY RIGHTS*?  What about my children’s rights???  What about my right to go to a concert or church and not worry about my *RIGHT* not to get my ass shot up by some loony toon who woke up pissed at the universe and decided to take out a bunch of innocents on his or her exit stage left?  What about my children’s *RIGHT* to attend school without the same?  Why is someone else’s rights more important than mine or my children’s, hhhhhhmmmmm?  Do you think I give a fuck about that?  What’s more important, my rights or yours?  
 
For the last fucking time, I have nothing against gun owners.  Not a thing.  But a background check that prevents a mentally ill or batterer from getting a firearm is fine by me.  I realize it won’t prevent gun violence.  But if it will prevent a few people from getting weapons they shouldn’t get then I’ll take that risk.
 
 
“Some wish to deny voting to women, you wish to ARBITRARILY deny "keeping and bearing arms" to anyone you deem "unfit".”
 
didn’t say a fucking thing about “arbitrary.”  That‘s you projecting yet again.  A background check, that’s all I want with defined limits.  
 
“As for my "meandering", how old are you? What's your level of education? You can't keep up?”
 
Oh, I can keep up.  But you projecting things on me and making shit up is confusing.
 
“Or is the reality you have no legitimate answer for your quandary?”
 
I’ve had several answers.  You refuse to either:
A) Read them
B) Understand them.
 
“You hypocrisy is clear and you can't defend it.”
 
No, I leave hypocrisy for the Christian Right.
Ward Tipton Added Nov 26, 2018 - 11:49am
"I didn’t say a fucking thing about “arbitrary.”  That‘s you projecting yet again.  A background check, that’s all I want with defined limits. "
 
You do know that according to the latest DSM that if you exhibit a strong emotional reaction to outside stimuli, you are exhibiting signs of a mental disorder. No? 
 
There you go exhibiting! No .223 for you, but that four hundred weatherby magnum hunting rifle? No problem. 
 
Shall not be infringed. You have just as much right to own a firearm to defend yourself and your family, even to feed yourself and your family as everyone else does. You are also free not to should you so desire, but the State has no legal obligation to protect you and generally just comes in to pick up the pieces. I for one, would rather depend on my own capacity to defend myself, and prefer any and all tools that make the job that much easier. 
 
But to some, that is a crazy way of thinking ... so is anyone who wishes to defend themselves and their families now insane as well? 
Bob Added Nov 26, 2018 - 12:00pm
"What about the right to keep and bear arms?  You guys want to ban "assault" rifles."
 
Conservatives supposedly want these weapons for self-protection and to stop tyranny if it arises. 
 
What does tyranny look like? Violent police, little to no accountability/justice when police use excessive violence even when it is on video. *Insert victim blaming here: especially when the victim is brown and not dressed properly*.  Kent State Ohio anyone? US military on the southern border? Military personnel are NOT to be deployed domestically, we have plenty of citizens without jobs who need one and can protect the border after some training.
 
Why do conservatives fly the blasphemous black and white American flag with the blue line on it? Ironic isn’t it? They need their guns to fight tyranny and proceed to fly a flag supporting the tyrants they wish to kill (just in case).  To add insult to injury, conservatives then bitch and moan when a black man kneels during the special song at football games? 
 
Illegal search and seizure by the state? Why do conservatives and their representatives support The PATRIOT Act and the NDAA which eviscerates the 4th amendment? The NSA gathers metadata which is every text, email, or digital transaction we all make just in case they need it for later. Massive Constitutional violation that few care about, or even know of.
 
I have no problem with gun ownership but don’t use those bullshit talking points with zero political, moral, and ethical consistency.  It’s like the religious and their “a la carte” selections of their holy book to accept and deny.  
 
I have an excellent socialist program all conservatives can get on board with. Give every person over the age of 16 a free American made AR-15 and 10,000 rounds then let the problem sort itself out!
Gerrilea Added Nov 26, 2018 - 12:29pm
Jeffry K-- NOW we're getting down to the problem and false ideas you harbor.
 
You have NO right that will stop you or protect you from feeling ANYTHING, especially fear.  Your rights end where mine begin, that is the constitutional republic you & I exist in.
 
 Why is someone else’s rights more important than mine or my children’s, hhhhhhmmmmm?  Do you think I give a fuck about that?  What’s more important, my rights or yours?  
 
You project your fears upon me and then claim I don't care about the children? Typical of the politically regressive atmosphere today.
 
If you can show me where in the constitution it says our government can regulate you & your children's fears away, I'll retract my statements and reformulate my position.  Sadly for you, it does not.
 
And yes, you are a hypocrite:
 
But a background check that prevents a mentally ill or batterer from getting a firearm is fine by me.  I realize it won’t prevent gun violence.
 
You can't be that smart if you don't understand that "mental illness" is defined by "doctors" voting?  It is arbitrary.  70 yrs ago being "gay" was considered a mental illness.
 
The DSM IV, is EXACTLY that, "medicine by vote".
 
“DSM-IV is the fabrication upon which psychiatry seeks acceptance by medicine in general. Insiders know it is more a political than scientific document…DSM-IV has become a bible and a money making bestseller—its major failings notwithstanding.”
—Loren Mosher, M.D., Clinical Professor of Psychiatry
 
“The way things get into the DSM is not based on blood test or brain scan or physical findings. It's based on descriptions of behavior. And that’s what the whole psychiatry system is.” —Dr. Colin Ross, psychiatrist
 
 
“We can manufacture enough diagnostic labels of normal variability of mood and thought that we can continually supply medication to you…But when it comes to manufacturing disease, nobody does it like psychiatry.” —Dr. Stefan Kruszewski, Harvard trained Pennsylvania psychiatrist, 2004
 
“In short, the whole business of creating psychiatric categories of ‘disease,’ formalizing them with consensus, and subsequently ascribing diagnostic codes to them, which in turn leads to their use for insurance billing, is nothing but an extended racket furnishing psychiatry a pseudo-scientific aura. The perpetrators are, of course, feeding at the public trough.” —Dr. Thomas Dorman, internist and member of the Royal College of Physicians of the UK, Fellow, Royal College of Physicians of Canada
-----
You want, You want, you FUCKING want to destroy this nation under the guise of "keeping you safe at night"!
 
Wake up, educate yourself on the very real policy you wish implemented in this nation.  Rights based on mental "health" IS what the Nazi's & the KGB did!
 
Who's the fascist now? ME or You?
 
AND didn't I present to you the facts from those same "professionals" already. THEY HAVE NO TEST THAT CAN PREDICT FUTURE BEHAVIORS.
 
Let's move the conversation forward.  We already know that my State, New York, uses the DSM as the guide for "mental illness". We know that IN PRACTICE, thousands of INNOCENT Americans are being denied their rights because you can't control your own fears.
 
What is the difference between you and Lindsay W???
 
NOTHING.
 
And just in case you weren't paying attention the new volume, The DSM-V, 2013 added 15 "new" mental disorders.
 
The one that should make you crawl into your closet or safe space and stay there is:
 
"Oppositional Defiant Disorder".
 
Easily angered at the stupidity of others? You've got ODD!
Your child throws temper tantrums? They've got ODD!
Gerrilea Added Nov 26, 2018 - 12:47pm
Bob--- I'm not a conservative, correction, only when it comes to money.
 
Making your diatribe, meaningless.
 
For the record:
 
--  I'm against the Militarization of the Police and would have voted for Bernie Sanders, for that reason alone. He pledged to remove all military equipment and federal funding from and for Local LEO training which is militaristic at its core.
--  I personally spent thousands of my own money to create flyers to hand out in downtown Buffalo BEFORE our government executed an innocent man, Troy Davis.
--  I'm against the Patriot Act and always have been, why Obama's betrayal was so stinging...they're all traitors.
--  I'm against the prosecution of Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning.
--  I'm against conflating rights to include your workplace. We have no constitutional rights at work.  There are however, created "civil" rights that the Federal & State governments require employers to follow.  Free speech isn't protected at work.
-- I protested Obama's signing of the NDAA and when Chelsea Manning gave us the info on the NSA, I wrote real physical letters to every one of my Federal and State representatives.   In case you were wondering why. Every letter your representative gets, it reflects the feelings of 15,000 people.
--  I'm a card carrying member of the ACLU despite their false position on the 2nd Amendment.
 
Enough with your bullshit. You can't stand that there are educated adults in the building that present constitutionally valid arguments against the machinations to destroy our nation.
 
Try something else next time.
 
Morgoth Added Nov 26, 2018 - 1:00pm
@Ward Tipton:
”You do know that according to the latest DSM that if you exhibit a strong emotional reaction to outside stimuli, you are exhibiting signs of a mental disorder. No?”
 
Um.....that’s nice?
 

 “Shall not be infringed.”
 
Yeah, I guess only gun owners have rights.  That’s nice.  I guess the next time we have a mass shooting at a school or another public place we’ll get more thoughts and prayers because, well, who cares about my rights?  Or my children rights?  It’s only about gun owners.  They are the only ones who count in this equation.
 
“You have just as much right to own a firearm to defend yourself and your family, even to feed yourself and your family as everyone else does. You are also free not to should you so desire, but the State has no legal obligation to protect you and generally just comes in to pick up the pieces.”
 
Um, huh?  The state has no legal obligation to protect me?  Then why have laws at all?  We could just turn this whole thing into a real life “Purge” where people act as they please and the state comes in and picks up the pieces.
 
Christ, that’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard, the “state has no legal obligation to protect you.”  Sure they do, that’s why we have local and national  law enforcement.  That’s the essential compact between citizens and governments.  The state has laws they enforce.  These laws protect citizens.  Why do you think we have speed limits? Laws against drunk driving?  Theft, murder, domestic violence, child abuse?????
 
“I for one, would rather depend on my own capacity to defend myself, and prefer any and all tools that make the job that much easier.”
 
Good for you.  
 
“But to some, that is a crazy way of thinking ... so is anyone who wishes to defend themselves and their families now insane as well?”
 
 
No and there’s that projection thing again.  But why bother to explain when gun owners get their panties in a twist over this?
Morgoth Added Nov 26, 2018 - 1:14pm
@Gerrilea:
 
“If you can show me where in the constitution it says our government can regulate you & your children's fears away, I'll retract my statements and reformulate my position.  Sadly for you, it does not.”
 
Actually my expectation is that I pay state and federal taxes and in return I expect some measure of safety, not more useless thoughts and prayers when some nutcase loses his or her’s shit and shoots up a church.  Or some batterer gets a gun and shoots his or her’s victim in a fit of rage.  This isn’t about my fears or my children’s fears.  This is me looking at an issue and looking for solutions.  Am I likely to die in a mass shooting?  Not very.  The same with my children.  That’s small comfort to those that wind up in that situation.  
 


 
“And yes, you are a hypocrite:”
 
The fuck I am.
 
“But a background check that prevents a mentally ill or batterer from getting a firearm is fine by me.  I realize it won’t prevent gun violence.
 
You can't be that smart if you don't understand that "mental illness" is defined by "doctors" voting?  It is arbitrary.  70 yrs ago being "gay" was considered a mental illness.”
 
Well, we’ve come along away, haven’t we?
 

-----
“You want, You want, you FUCKING want to destroy this nation under the guise of "keeping you safe at night"!”
 
Exaggerate much????  LOL, OMG, making people go through a background check is going to destroy this nation???  That’s rich.  
 
So, let’s see.  We are talking about a few people here and there.  Most people who purchase weapons are perfectly capable, sane and law-abiding.
 
This feels personal.
 
Hhhhhmmmm, is perhaps the issue that you wouldn’t pass a background check, Gerrilea?  Is this getting closer to the issue?

Ward Tipton Added Nov 26, 2018 - 1:21pm
"Christ, that’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard, the “state has no legal obligation to protect you.”  Sure they do, that’s why we have local and national  law enforcement. "
 
So the SCOTUS Rulings are the dumbest thing you have ever heard? And the sheriff that was outside the school in Broward County who could have prevented numerous student deaths? Well within "department parameters" ... "no obligation to enter" ... 
 
Which, when added to the many egregious abuses of law enforcement, again, are the reason I trust me to protect me and my family more than I trust the legal fiction known as government. 
Morgoth Added Nov 26, 2018 - 1:30pm
@Ward Tipton:
”So the SCOTUS Rulings are the dumbest thing you have ever heard?”
 
Um, the SCOTUS says that the state has no legal obligation to protect me?
 
“And the sheriff that was outside the school in Broward County who could have prevented numerous student deaths? Well within "department parameters" ... "no obligation to enter" ... “
Hey, so, why not just arm teachers?  What about rabbis and priests?  Ushers at the local movie theater?  If a sheriff’s deputy doesn’t enter a school, let’s leave it up to teachers who are untrained and not used to combat situations!!!!  Same with the rabbis and priests!!!!  Or, hell, why not just put armed guards everywhere to protect the public, that won’t make us look like a banana republic, oh, no, not at all!!!  We’ll just turn this country into a police state!!!
 
That’s a failure of policy.  The deputy should’ve entered.  That needs to be addressed and changed.  That’s his job to keep the public safe.  
 
“Which, when added to the many egregious abuses of law enforcement, again, are the reason I trust me to protect me and my family more than I trust the legal fiction known as government.”
 
Good for you.
Gerrilea Added Nov 26, 2018 - 1:31pm
Jeffry Kelly--- 1st off, the Supreme Court has made it clear their is no constitutional duty to protect you, EVEN if you State has laws on the books that it must.
 
Maybe you should be keeping up with the times? Even the NY Times reported on this way back in 2005.
 
The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
 
---
 
And here you thought all those billions we've spent paying our taxes was going to amount to our creation having some duty to protect us?
 
Ugh.
 
If they will not, who does?
 
The "issue" was your desire to include "mental health screening" to the criteria for a "background check".
 
As for this:
 
Hhhhhmmmm, is perhaps the issue that you wouldn’t pass a background check, Gerrilea?
 
In fact, yes it is personal and YES I would be denied the right to keep and bear arms here in NYS.  I was diagnosed with Gender Dysphoria over 35 yrs ago.  I was told for more than half my life I had a "mental disorder", I agreed.  Who in their right mind would believe they are the opposite gender than the one they were born with?
 
I searched for answers for years and found nothing.  I was born this way and my genetic wiring in my brain is backwards.
 
As of the DSM-V, they graciously decided to "de-list" is as a mental disorder BECAUSE, wait for it....OBAMACARE.  Health Insurance companies could no longer arbitrarily deny medical treatments for a preexisting medical condition.
 
Now, today I could, if I so desired own a firearm in NYS because a group of mostly men decided by vote that a mental disorder was not a mental disorder  AND it was financially "more reasonable" for their bosses, the insurance companies, not to pay for treatments for transgendered individuals.
 
Politics is always personal, especially when you wish to deny rights to others.
 
 
Morgoth Added Nov 26, 2018 - 2:02pm
Here’s the court’s opinion:
 
”The Supreme Court reversed the Tenth Circuit's decision, reinstating the District Court's order of dismissal. The Court's majority opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia held that enforcement of the restraining order was not mandatory under Colorado law;”
 
So, essentially Colorado’s law did not make enforcement mandatory.  That’s a pretty stupid oversight but technically that’s the way the law is written.
 
Solution:
Make it mandatory.
 
“were a mandate for enforcement to exist, it would not create an individual right to enforcement that could be considered a protected entitlement under the precedent of Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth;”
 
So even if this existed it would not be a protected entitlement....
 
“and even if there were a protected individual entitlement to enforcement of a restraining order, such entitlement would have no monetary value and hence would not count as property for the Due Process Clause.”
 
So, essentially you can’t sue for monetary damages because an entitlement like this has no monetary value.
 
“Justice David Souter wrote a concurring opinion, using the reasoning that enforcement of a restraining order is a process, not the interest protected by the process, and that there is not due process protection for processes.”
 
 
That does not mean that the police officers couldn’t be punished, it means there’s no monetary value and you can’t sue.
Morgoth Added Nov 26, 2018 - 2:05pm
@Gerrilea:
”In fact, yes it is personal and YES I would be denied the right to keep and bear arms here in NYS.”
 
Well, see, then as this is a personal issue then you can’t look at it in an unbiased manner.
 
Gerrilea Added Nov 26, 2018 - 2:26pm
Jeffry K--- You are truly lost in your zealotry. 
 
So, you're okay that the Supreme Court stated that the police DO NOT HAVE TO PROTECT US.
 
So even if this existed it would not be a protected entitlement....
 
We are not entitled to be protected by the Police, that was their legal decision.  It matters not if we can sue them for damages.
 
And you lost your mind when you say this shit:
 
as this is a personal issue then you can’t look at it in an unbiased manner.
 
You're the one that fears and can't rationally analysis the real world results of policies you want initiated. You fear going to the mall, you fear for your children in school...YOU JUST FEAR.  And to appease your non-existent "right" to not fear,  you wish to destroy our constitution.
 
Here, let me educate you a bit more:
 
Otis McDonald when he sued Chicago at the Supreme Court this is what he said on the decision:
 
"Otis McDonald forced the nation to keep its word, vanquishing Chicago’s handgun ban in the process. "There was a wrong done a long time ago that dates back to slavery time," he told the Chicago Tribune in 2010. "I could feel the spirit of those people running through me as I sat in the Supreme Court." His win not only vindicated their spirit; it expanded the constitutional liberties of all Americans going forward. He was a civil rights hero who made his country a better place."
 
You'd wish to create future generations of Americans that would be arbitrarily denied rights based on "mental health".
 
And you know what, you never addressed the facts presented.
  "Mental Health" and "mental illness" is arbitrary, period.
 
 
 
Morgoth Added Nov 26, 2018 - 3:33pm
@Gerrilea:
Jeffry K--- You are truly lost in your zealotry.”
 
Seems to me the only zealot is you.
 
“So, you're okay that the Supreme Court stated that the police DO NOT HAVE TO PROTECT US.”
 
Actually looks like much of that is legal technicality relating to whether or not someone can sue.  It doesn’t mean that officers of the law couldn’t be punished for not upholding the law.
 

 
“And you lost your mind when you say this shit:
 
as this is a personal issue then you can’t look at it in an unbiased manner.”
 
Yep, said it, stand by it.  You said you have a type of mental illness, therefore you are not an unbiased observer in this.
 
“You're the one that fears and can't rationally analysis the real world results of policies you want initiated. You fear going to the mall, you fear for your children in school...YOU JUST FEAR.  And to appease your non-existent "right" to not fear,  you wish to destroy our constitution.”
 
That’s just your zealotry talking again.
 

 
“You'd wish to create future generations of Americans that would be arbitrarily denied rights based on "mental health".”
 
More zealotry.
 
“And you know what, you never addressed the facts presented.
  "Mental Health" and "mental illness" is arbitrary, period.”
 
Shit changes.  How about that as a way of addressing it?
Tamara Wilhite Added Nov 26, 2018 - 4:36pm
No, not rare.
 

Jeffrey Kelly


Study supports Trump: 5.7 million noncitizens may have cast illegal votes
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/19/noncitizen-illegal-vote-number-higher-than-estimat/
Morgoth Added Nov 26, 2018 - 4:49pm
“The research organization Just Facts, a widely cited, independent think tank led by self-described conservatives and libertarians, revealed its number-crunching in a report on national immigration.”
 
 
LOL LOL LOL, yeah, conservatives and libertarians....
 
That’s also looking at 2008.  
 
Look, there’s not a chance in hell 5 + million illegal voters voted in the last election.  Besides, why does Trump care?  He won the last election and it’s not a popular vote.  
 
Well, yeah, he needs to stroke his ego.  Everyone needs to love him.
Morgoth Added Nov 26, 2018 - 4:55pm
James Added Nov 26, 2018 - 4:58pm
I'm fairly certain I know of at least one article of which you speak. Unbelievable...
 
I agree with much of what you wrote in the article. I agree it is motivated by fear, though I would like to add not just a fear of too much changing too fast in ways some people don't like, but also the fear of being marginalized; being in the minority and having one's concerns be completely ignored by the majority {or at least the ruling class}. Also the anger of seeing so many things going the wrong way {economically} and seemingly powerless to correct course because it's all so cumbersome, so removed, & those in charge refuse to listen.
 
I'm more in the liberal camp on most issues but I can appreciate some of these fears.
 
I also agree that gerrymandering & limiting voting times or polling places are sometimes examples of voter suppression and completely antithetical to intrinsic values like representative democracy, one person one vote, & government by consent of the governed.
 
Where I do not agree is lumping voter ID in with these. I do agree that the efforts to enact them are largely motivated by partisan political advantage. But I also believe it is a legitimate concern because if there isn't integrity in the electoral process then there will be little to no confidence in the legitimacy of the outcome. That's how we end up with things like the never-ending parade of elections which are declared illegitimate by partisans of both sides whether there is a shred of evidence of it or not. And that way lies disaster.
 
Frankly, I manage to offend ideologues on the left & the right because I think there should be a vetting process both in exercising one's right to vote & one's right to possess a firearm. The only way to have any reasonable assurances that dangerous criminals are being prevented from buying guns or non-residents are being prevented from voting {or double-voting} is to require some verification that a person is both eligible and is indeed who they say they are.
 
I totally agree that we should want all citizens to vote, regardless of ethnicity, gender, class or partisan affiliation. I believe, in addition to an informed electorate, the solution to bad outcomes in elections is more people voting, not less. Low turnout means a smaller group is doing the deciding, and with a smaller pool comes a smaller number necessary to shift the outcome. It makes fraud, manipulation or just careless voting more effective. 
 
It also seems to me that it hands the process over to activists, and they can be very rigid, extreme, uncompromising. Hyperpartisans certainly are. And small bands of purists choosing representatives who fit their narrow agenda surely impedes the ability of electing representatives who will promote what is best for most.
 
Lastly, I don't think we have to worry too much about the authoritarian types. Some of what is going on right now is a backlash, a natural process; the pendulum swing. I'm still a firm believer that the arc of the moral universe does bend towards justice. But I would also suggest to you that the authoritarians {or those who espouse illiberalism} are not all on the right. And if anyone can reach them, or persuade others from joining, it would have to be liberals.
Morgoth Added Nov 26, 2018 - 5:00pm
Well said, James.  Thank you for your comment.
Ward Tipton Added Nov 27, 2018 - 1:29am
So let me know when the Sheriff is prosecuted for not doing his job in Broward county. Explain to the families of the dead students that, even though they cannot sue for monetary damages, perhaps they can get the law changed so the next time, the cops have to do their job? 
 
We had a rifle rack behind the driver seat of the schoolbus when I was a kid. We generally just carried our pistols into class. Funny. We had a lot of fights, a lot of broken hearts, a lot of threats, but not once did anyone go for their firearm to settle personal disputes. 
 
Perhaps an interesting study for you would be the violent crime statistics between those places that are strict in regards to firearms ownership and those locations wherein firearms ownership is prevalent. You will oddly enough, discover that high firearm ownership is generally indicative of an area with a substantially lower violent crime rate ... in short one in which perhaps you would not have to "fear" for the safety of your children or even yourself. 
 
The irony of course, is that you demand that guys with guns and unlimited powers, many of whom have committed crimes against the people, and remained unpunished, be sent to the home of law abiding citizens, to remove guns from people who, statistically, especially among the CCW holders, are among the most law-abiding citizens in the nation ... as you must have a virtually spotless record to obtain a CCW ... all because you "fear" those who do not obey or concern themselves with the law? 
 
Surely if you look at that objectively you can see where the conflicts in such reasoning begin at least no? 
 
Never mind the fact that mental health standards are wholly and completely arbitrary and subject even to the personal prejudice and bias of the psychologists and psychiatrists ... many of whom were already troubled psychologically before entering college and who have undertaken studies to neatly quantify, label and fit themselves neatly into some category of normal. (There is a reason that these soft sciences (which are still very much an art form) are constantly challenging those in the priesthood for the highest suicide rates in a single profession) Never mind the admissions of big pharma that they make shit up to pawn dangerous psychotropic drugs on kids and adults alike? 
 
Yeah, as I said, I would much rather depend on myself to defend myself and my family, though if it does help to alleviate any of this deep-rooted fear that you have, you can rest assured that the vast majority of law abiding firearms owners, would just as quickly defend you and your family ... at least as long as you are not trying to take away their means to do so? 
 
What is next? Ban all assault knives? Oh wait. That is already happening. Once upon the slippery slope, where does one stop?
 
 
Gerrilea Added Nov 27, 2018 - 1:36am
Jeffry K--- So it is your position that if you have a "dog in the fight" you cannot argue the issue and only those whom appear "neutral" can do so?
 
Who are you zooming? 
 
Each American has a stake in the policy you wish to be nationalized.  The abrogation of rights based on arbitrary values that are mere opinion.    If I think you're a danger and I'm a ER personnel, an attendant in the doctors office, I must, under current NYS law, report you so that you will be denied rights I don't think anyone should exercise.
 
It doesn't matter if I was at one time "considered" to have a mental illness, they've changed their mind.  And that still doesn't matter, I don't feel the need to own a firearm. I've never felt the need to own a weapon.  I have my bare hands and I've been trained to use them.
 
I'll make a deal with ya. Let's enact your idea of "reasonable regulations" for all "rights", especially your right to speak freely, petition for redress, exercise your religion, free press and especially voting.  Hell, while were at it, we should throw in those "civil rights" for equal housing, equal pay, equal accommodations et al.
 
Of course you're gonna need to provide access to all your online activities.
 
The law would give state and local police the green light to investigate for "commonly known profane slurs used or biased language used to describe race, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, disability or sexual orientation; threatening health or safety of another person, or an act of terrorism."
 
That's my legitimate offer.  You want to put preconditions upon one then they are all up for grabs...and I'll join with you.
 
Don't make excuses or deflections that "one right is more deadly than the other" or some such nonsense. 
 
Let's see who blinks first.
 
 
Morgoth Added Nov 27, 2018 - 6:40am
@Ward Tipton:
”The irony of course, is that you demand that guys with guns and unlimited powers, many of whom have committed crimes against the people, and remained unpunished, be sent to the home of law abiding citizens, to remove guns from people who, statistically, especially among the CCW holders, are among the most law-abiding citizens in the nation ...”
 
Please show me, right now, where I said this.
 
See, the issue is you are reading something into what I said that is not there.  I never said this.  Never.  
 
The problem is when someone like me wants some reasonable regulations regarding gun ownership gun owners lose their minds and scream to high heaven about the loss of their sacred “rights.”
 
The thing is those things have existed in the past and the world didn’t end.  The country didn’t go to hell, we’re all still here and the government didn’t sweep in to take your precious guns away.
 
Christ, it’s like you love your fucking guns to the exclusion of all else.
 
Get a grip.
 
 
Morgoth Added Nov 27, 2018 - 6:44am
@Gerrilea:
”Each American has a stake in the policy you wish to be nationalized.”
 
OK.
 
 
“And that still doesn't matter, I don't feel the need to own a firearm. I've never felt the need to own a weapon.  I have my bare hands and I've been trained to use them.”
 
Oh.  Then why are you whining at me?
 
“I'll make a deal with ya. Let's enact your idea of "reasonable regulations" for all "rights", especially your right to speak freely, petition for redress, exercise your religion, free press and especially voting.  Hell, while were at it, we should throw in those "civil rights" for equal housing, equal pay, equal accommodations et al.”
 
Good god.
 
 
“Let's see who blinks first.”
 
Why?
 
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Nov 27, 2018 - 8:51am
We should let illegal aliens vote??
 
Why?
 
To stuff ballot boxes for the far left ??
Ward Tipton Added Nov 27, 2018 - 8:57am
"Please show me, right now, where I said this.
 
See, the issue is you are reading something into what I said that is not there.  I never said this.  Never.  "
 
Actually, yes, you did. 
 
Right here ... "So, essentially Colorado’s law did not make enforcement mandatory.  That’s a pretty stupid oversight but technically that’s the way the law is written.
 
Solution:
Make it mandatory."
 
Law enforcement is often handled by ... wait for it ... Law Enforcement Agents ... need I draw a list of all of the cases of egregious abuse by Law Enforcement Agents as well? Dan Shaver for one? Killing a security guard holding a robbery suspect at gunpoint? The guy shot sixteen times while he was sleeping because he was sleeping with a hand under his pillow ... during a warrantless search no less? 63 rounds into the back of a vehicle not even matching that of the suspect ... and these are the people you want to rely on for protection? These are the best we can expect from the "trained professionals"? Never mind the fact that virtually none of them have a clear understanding of the law. Never mind the restrictions on hiring anyone with a triple digit IQ. 
 
Two year investigation ... but yeah, we busted down the wrong door at the wrong address ... yeah, those are the guys I want protecting me ... NOT. 
 
Mind you, if the cops were even held to the same standards as we the people, maybe I would at least be more sympathetic, but all of those cases were initially ruled to be justified despite the blatant illegality of the actions taken by the LE. As it is, nope ... I trust me. I know how I react under fire and I know what I will and will not do. I will call the cops when it is said and done and they can fill out the reports while I make them some coffee. 
Morgoth Added Nov 27, 2018 - 9:56am
@rycK the JFK Democrat:
”We should let illegal aliens vote??
 
Why?
 
To stuff ballot boxes for the far left ??”
 
Who said anything about letting illegal aliens vote?
Morgoth Added Nov 27, 2018 - 10:24am
@Ward Tipton:
 
”Actually, yes, you did.
 
Right here ... "So, essentially Colorado’s law did not make enforcement mandatory.  That’s a pretty stupid oversight but technically that’s the way the law is written.
 
Solution:
Make it mandatory."
 
Law enforcement is often handled by ... wait for it ... Law Enforcement Agents ...”
 
See, Ward, that’s actually a fail on your part.  That dealt with a technical oversight in Colorado law that dealt with a VPO, not gun control.  So, again, you keep reading something into things I write that aren’t there.
 
I don’t care about responsible gun ownership.  Keep your precious guns.  They mean so much to you, I hate to split you up.
 
 
“need I draw a list of all of the cases of egregious abuse by Law Enforcement Agents as well? Dan Shaver for one? Killing a security guard holding a robbery suspect at gunpoint? The guy shot sixteen times while he was sleeping because he was sleeping with a hand under his pillow ... during a warrantless search no less? 63 rounds into the back of a vehicle not even matching that of the suspect ... and these are the people you want to rely on for protection? These are the best we can expect from the "trained professionals"? Never mind the fact that virtually none of them have a clear understanding of the law. Never mind the restrictions on hiring anyone with a triple digit IQ.”
 
Hey, I’m not going to claim law enforcement is perfect.  Far from it.  My issue with a lot of this is that there is very few prosecutions of law enforcement that do bad things.
 
But if you are saying that citizens need to take matters into their own hands then you’ll get no support from me. 
 

Morgoth Added Nov 27, 2018 - 10:25am
BTW you are welcome to protect your own house, Ward.  That’s perfectly acceptable and I’ll back that.
Ward Tipton Added Nov 27, 2018 - 10:29am
I would protect yours too ... and your family as well if you are a neighbor. Us bitter, deplorable, unwashed Klingon masses are funny like that LOL
Morgoth Added Nov 27, 2018 - 10:38am
Good, thanks.  I know who to go see, then.
:)
Gerrilea Added Nov 27, 2018 - 1:11pm
Jeffrey K--
Oh.  Then why are you whining at me?
 
Because, we all have a stake in the policies you want implemented. You refuse to acknowledge the inherent dangers of putting preconditions upon rights you don't like others exercising.  As I've established with HISTORICAL facts, it never stops with just one.
 
As NYS is now attempting to criminalize speech, all for their "precious reasonable regulations".
 
There is no such thing as "hate speech" yet the bill that is now in the State Senate says exactly that and I gave you the link.
 
As for this canard:
 
The thing is those things have existed in the past and the world didn’t end.  The country didn’t go to hell, we’re all still here and the government didn’t sweep in to take your precious guns away.
 
Um, what history books have you ever read?  The Nazi's disarmed the Jews and then what did they do to them?
 
Here, let me help you out a bit.  Democide.
 
This nation never had the kind of "regulations" the State is now enacting to deny the keeping and bearing of arms to as many citizens as possible.
 
Gun control was the Democrats goal to keep slaves and then former slaves from being able to defend themselves and in the notorious Cruikshank Decision, the Supreme Court refused to incorporate the Bill of Rights upon State Governments.
 
"The short term effects of United States v. Cruikshank saw Southern blacks being abused by increasingly hostile state governments, who did little to protect them. When Democrats regained office in the late 1870s, legislation was passed making elections and voter registration more complicated. These laws effectively  stripped a large percentage of blacks from voting."
 
Subsequent decisions eviscerated said decision and incorporated the Bill of Rights upon the States with the exception of this part:
 
"6. The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."
 
That was until McDonald v. Chicago and Heller v. DC decisions this century.  The States can regulate arms but not enact laws that are designed to deny the right.
 
You see both rights, the right to vote and the right to keep and bear arms are inextricably intertwined, as are all of our rights.  It's the bigots and zealots in this nation that have done these things.
 
I see you no differently than Lindsay W, both of you are on a quest to abrogate the rights of citizens.
 
There is only one difference, Lindsay admits it and gives his "rational", you deny it saying your "right" not to live in fear is something even remotely tangible or able to be legislated away.
 
Then you admit you know it won't stop "gun violence". How is that not hypocrisy?
 
Morgoth Added Nov 27, 2018 - 3:45pm
@Gerrilea:
”Because, we all have a stake in the policies you want implemented.”
 
Yup.  We do.
 
“You refuse to acknowledge the inherent dangers of putting preconditions upon rights you don't like others exercising.”
 
I could give a damn about responsible gun owners.  My issue is with those who are not.
 
“There is no such thing as "hate speech"
 
Sure there is and it is not protected speech.
 

 
“As for this canard:
 
The thing is those things have existed in the past and the world didn’t end.  The country didn’t go to hell, we’re all still here and the government didn’t sweep in to take your precious guns away.
 
Um, what history books have you ever read?”
 
A lot.  I was referring to previous gun legislation, I didn’t know we were switching to other countries.
 
“The Nazi's disarmed the Jews and then what did they do to them?”
 
You don’t need to tell me what the Germans did to the Jews.  I’m willing to bet I know a shitload more about it than you.  I don’t see the need to get into a contest over this but if you want more education about it I am happy to provide it.  I’ll even write you an article about it.
 
“Here, let me help you out a bit.  target="_blank">Democide.
 
Thanks but I don’t need the help.
 
“This nation never had the kind of "regulations" the State is now enacting to deny the keeping and bearing of arms to as many citizens as possible.”
 
Sure it has.  As this is not an article about such I’m not going to go into detail.  Feel free to look it up.
 
late 1870s, legislation was passed making elections and voter registration more
 
“I see you no differently than Lindsay W, both of you are on a quest to abrogate the rights of citizens.”
 
You are wandering into a dangerous area with me.  Equating me with a racist, WN shithead like Lindsay is saying that this is true about me.  I will not tolerate such on my article.  It violates one of my rules.  I will let it go this one time but any further comparisons will be deleted by me after I copy and paste your comment with the offending passage deleted or edited.
 
Is this understood?  I used to do this with John G.  I allow a great deal but this I will not allow.  I do not tolerate equating or calling me a racist and I do not tolerate personal attacks on my family.  Anything else is fair game.
 

rycK the JFK Democrat Added Nov 27, 2018 - 4:06pm
Jeffrey Kelley
 
"Who said anything about letting illegal aliens vote?"
 
Ever watch the news or live near California?
Morgoth Added Nov 27, 2018 - 4:34pm
Sorry, I don’t read or watch anything on Infowars or Breitbart.
 
Thanks, though.
John Howard Added Nov 27, 2018 - 5:44pm
Jeffrey Kelly tells me:
 
"You can do as you wish, vote or not as you please.  However, I say those that don’t vote shouldn’t bitch about the result."
 
Just so I understand this moral-philosophy pronouncement, we give an innocent girl the choice of being horse-whipped or water-boarded and when she refuses to choose either, we tell her she shouldn't bitch during the horse-whipping, right?
Morgoth Added Nov 27, 2018 - 5:53pm
@John Howard:
”Just so I understand this moral-philosophy pronouncement, we give an innocent girl the choice of being horse-whipped or water-boarded and when she refuses to choose either, we tell her she shouldn't bitch during the horse-whipping, right?”
 
What are you talking about?  
 
There’s no equivalent to torture and voting.  The person being tortured has no free will, you do.  If you choose not to vote, great.  That’s a decision based upon your freedom to vote or not.
 
But by not voting you say you don’t care about the outcome so any outcome is fine by you.  If it’s fine, why gripe?  
 
The problem is too many decide that it doesn’t matter or they can’t be bothered  or they don’t like the choices.  Fine.  But the problem is if too many decide this way then the outcome is decided on a much smaller voting population.
Gerrilea Added Nov 28, 2018 - 1:21am
Jeffrey K---
 
“There is no such thing as "hate speech"
 
Sure there is and it is not protected speech.
 
Now I understand, you are not from this nation.  Here I thought I was arguing with a real American.  One that knows we can say whatever we like up to and including, burning crosses and saying the "N" word to a colored person.  As long as our speech does not incite others to violence or imminent lawlessness.  For example:  I get on my soapbox and demand accountability from the local mayor for his failure to control the militarized police that shot and killed an innocent person and I tell all those gathered that we must go to his home and four-horse quarter him.  I proceed to present the 4 horses I brought with me and say...."LET"S GO GET HIM!!!"
 
That is not protected speech. 
 
We do not have a concept of "hate speech" in this nation. Your feelings are yours to deal with if someone says something you don't like.
 
IN Brandenburg V Ohio, the Supreme Court made this distinction the supreme law of the land:
 
Appellant, a Ku Klux Klan leader, was convicted under the Ohio Criminal Syndicalism statute for advocat[ing] . . . the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform and for voluntarily assembl[ing] with any society, group or assemblage of persons formed to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism.
 
Neither the indictment nor the trial judge's instructions refined the statute's definition of the crime in terms of mere advocacy not distinguished from incitement to imminent lawless action.
Held: Since the statute, by its words and as applied, purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of action, it falls within the condemnation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
 
Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.
 
Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, overruled and reversed.
 
-----
 
On to this:
 
Sure it has.  As this is not an article about such I’m not going to go into detail.  Feel free to look it up.
 
You'd need to present to me historical links to Federal Legislation that was passed that demanded citizens be cleared "mentally" before exercising any of the rights listed in our Bill of Rights.
 
There aren't any.  IN fact, the exact opposite is true.  The Militia Act of 1792 that George Washington signed REQUIRED all able bodied males 17-45 yrs old to be armed and report for "regulation training".
 
As for your 'warning" to me....I understand that this is your article, you can delete whatever you don't like.
 
Maybe you could provide a list of your "rules".
 
What is "WN"???
 
Morgoth Added Nov 28, 2018 - 7:42am
@Gerrilea:
There is no such thing as "hate speech"


 
Sure there is and it is not protected speech.

Here I thought I was arguing with a real American.  One that knows we can say whatever we like up to and including, burning crosses and saying the "N" word to a colored person.  As long as our speech does not incite others to violence or imminent lawlessness.  For example:  I get on my soapbox and demand accountability from the local mayor for his failure to control the militarized police that shot and killed an innocent person and I tell all those gathered that we must go to his home and four-horse quarter him.  I proceed to present the 4 horses I brought with me and say...."LET"S GO GET HIM!!!"
 
That is not protected speech.”
 
 
You know, should’ve qualified that.  Yes, you are right.  “Hate speech” is protected, however, inciting violence or threatening violence is not.  I can say I hate Jews and deny the Holocaust but I can’t spit out a detailed plan on how I’m going to do them harm.

 
You'd need to present to me historical links to Federal Legislation that was passed that demanded cittizens be cleared "mentally" before exercising any of the rights listed in our Bill of Rights.”
 
Look at “Prohibited Persons”
 


“(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;”
 
Granted this is not “cleared” per se but it does have a mental component.  The law is still on the books.
 
As for regulations regarding gun control, there have been a few here and there.


 
 “As for your 'warning" to me....I understand that this is your article, you can delete whatever you don't like.”
 
Yes, I can.  I generally choose not to, even things I dislike.
 
“Maybe you could provide a list of your "rules".”
 
Accuse me of me of racism or even imply it is bounds for correction.  Outright threats or insults to my family and you are gone.  Comparing me to Lindsay is grounds in my eyes for correction.
 
“What is "WN"???”
 
White Nationalist.
 


 
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Nov 28, 2018 - 11:00am
JK
 
"@Gerrilea:
There is no such thing as "hate speech"

Sure there is and it is not protected speech."
 
Hate speech is a political term applied by the left to those who are targets. The notion of reverse hate speech is not settled in our society similar to the notion of reverse racism, of which there cannot be any because blacks have a special place in social interactions. 
 
Read some of Sobantu Mzwakali or Louis Farrakhan's works and tell us this is not hate speech. Or twisted logic like this:
 
"On discrimination based on one’s colour, I can only concur that blacks can be prejudicial towards whites - but not racist. What do I mean? Before I attempt to give an explanation of my argument, I first have to define words that serve as the premises: prejudice and racism. Prejudice refers to a positive or negative evaluation of another person based on their perceived group membership. Racism on the other hand refers to social actions, practices or beliefs or political systems that consider different races to be ranked as inherently superior or inferior to each other. Furthermore, racism is socio-economic, with systemic structures which promote one race’s powers over another. Socio-economic being the operative word, I am certain you will agree that black people do not have the resources to impose such oppressive structures which enforce their superiority. White people on the other hand have, and had imposed them on blacks for over four centuries of slavery and colonialism. Black people can be prejudiced, but not racist."--https://www.pambazuka.org/governance/black-people-can%E2%80%99t-be-racist
 
The notion that "that blacks can be prejudicial towards whites - but not racist."  is a phony barrier that protects the black ownership of racism that is politically sacrosanct. 
 
"I am certain you will agree that black people do not have the resources to impose such oppressive structures which enforce their superiority."

 
Obama? The Cambridge Incident? Race norming? What do we do with words like honky, cracker, whitey and others. No racism here?
 
This is left-wing political crap. 
Gerrilea Added Nov 28, 2018 - 12:55pm
Jeffrey K--- ROFL, Lindsay is a white nationalist?  I never paid attention to the garbage he spews, so...maybe I missed it...
 
What is your definition of "racist"? Be clear please.
 
FYI, at times I'm truly a racist, I hate all humans...they are a vile infestation on this planet, especially when I see teenagers cooking kittens in an oven, alive....because they thought it was funny.  Then, at other calm moments, I see some redeeming qualities....rare as they are...
 
As for "prohibited" person...NOW we're getting somewhere.  Please note in the link you provided, "adjudicated" is used.  At the moment you become, through a court of law, deemed "unfit"...you can be denied rights.
 
You see, there is "due process", with charges, judge, jury and a conviction.  You can present evidence in your own defense, at the expense of the State even, to prove innocence or mental clarity and sanity.
 
The regulation you want does NOT include those protections and "due process".  Trump EVEN said he wants the guns 1st...then maybe will have "due process" later.
 
In NYS, there is no "due process", as the law is written and is implemented here.
 
Besides, the GCA of '68, leaves the decision, when selling arms privately between two parties, UP to the seller.  They are not required to do a background check for the buyer.  The government CANNOT make us agents of the state.  It was a legitimate constitutional exception.  They knew it couldn't be done.
 
And just recently, the last 20 yrs or so, those "gun grabbers" on the left have tried to redefine that constitutional exception into the "Gun Show Loophole".
 
 
Bill Added Nov 28, 2018 - 1:42pm
The OP is obviously referring to my article.  I don't want to "strip" anyone of anything - he is lashing out because he doesn't like the particular possible solution I provided to real problems faced by our country because he is politically polarized and trained to demonize those who disagree with him.  If he doesn't like that idea, perhaps instead of demonizing strangers he should do the REAL adult work and come up with a better solution.
 
I do want a country in which we have fiscally responsible government which is not leading us to a fiscal cliff and financial collapse.  @JeffreyKelly has not provided any workable ideas in that regards.
 
All of those people @JeffreyKelly claims I "want to disenfranchise" are going to be up the creek, along with a substantially greater portion of this country, if Entitlements are not reformed.  There is no other workable solution than to cut spending; any other plan is "wishanomics."
 
I really wish that all adult people were responsible adults.  They are not, they never have been, and it is unlikely that there will be some future Utopia in which they are.  To think that irresponsible adults will use their vote to elect responsible representatives is logically equivalent to saying that if you put enough monkeys in a room with typewriters then in time a masterpiece will emerge.  That experiment has been tried numerous times in numerous ways, and has always failed.
 
The authors of our Constitution knew this, and intentionally limited the vote primarily to those who funded the government.  It was presumed that, for the most part, people who had somehow obtained money and managed to hang onto it had figured out the hard rules of fiscal responsibility, and would presumably vote for people who for the most part knew and adhered to those rules.  While the removal of DISCRIMINATION against certain classes of people was a WONDERFUL thing, declaring that every breathing animal with human DNA should vote was a positive was an idea sponsored by unscrupulous people who stood to benefit by deceiving a large number of ignorant people, and I reject the notion that it was in balance a wise decision.
 
Nevertheless, I am not tied to that solution and to paint me as if I were as the OP has is simply reflective of the growing incivility and immaturity of our adult populace.  If someone has another idea which will result in a fiscally responsible government which does not involve limiting the vote, I'm all ears.  Until then, you are simply elevating faux "compassion" over reason.
Morgoth Added Nov 28, 2018 - 1:47pm
Actually, Bill, you are just one of the articles I thought of.  Ryan Messano posted one about denying women the right to vote.
Morgoth Added Nov 28, 2018 - 1:49pm
@rycK the JFK Democrat:
”Hate speech is a political term applied by the left to those who are targets. The notion of reverse hate speech is not settled in our society similar to the notion of reverse racism, of which there cannot be any because blacks have a special place in social interactions.“
 
First, I applaud you for being consistent. I like that.
Second, “hate speech” can cover many things.  Yes, extremists of both stripes can spew hate speech.  I’m aware of that.
Third, regardless of who does it is wrong.
Morgoth Added Nov 28, 2018 - 1:56pm
@Gerrilea:
Jeffrey K--- ROFL, Lindsay is a white nationalist?  I never paid attention to the garbage he spews, so...maybe I missed it...”
 
Yes, he is.  I read his stuff.
 
“What is your definition of "racist"? Be clear please.”
 
Why?  That has nothing to do with the topic at hand.  Maybe sometime I will write an article about it if I decide.  
 
“FYI, at times I'm truly a racist, I hate all humans...they are a vile infestation on this planet, especially target="_blank">when I see teenagers cooking kittens in an oven, alive....because they thought it was funny.  Then, at other calm moments, target="_blank">I see some redeeming qualities....rare as they are...”
 
Good for you.  I sometimes feel the same.
 

 
“You see, there is "due process", with charges, judge, jury and a conviction.  You can present evidence in your own defense, at the expense of the State even, to prove innocence or mental clarity and sanity.”
 
You know, this sounds like an issue between you and the State of New York.  Maybe you should sue and take it as far as you can take it.  Let us know how it goes.
 
“The regulation you want does NOT include those protections and "due process".  Trump EVEN said he wants the guns 1st...then maybe will have "due process" later.”
 
No, I said reasonable regulations.  I said nothing about due process.  That is you reading something that is not there.
 
OK, here’s the deal:
This article is not about gun control.  If you wish to discuss gun control do it on your own article.
 
 
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Nov 28, 2018 - 2:20pm
Jeffery Kelley
 
"Third, regardless of who does it is wrong."
 
We agree here on hate speech. 
 
But, getting back to your original premise, stated as a question: 
What Is It with Some on the Right Wanting to Take Rights Away from Citizens?
 
Merely substitute right for left here and we can agree some more. 
 
Morgoth Added Nov 28, 2018 - 2:42pm
No, rycK, the left wants more people to vote, the right doesn’t.
 
No, that doesn’t mean illegals or dead people.  Voter participation among those eligible to vote is less than 50%, this needs to be higher for a truly representative government.
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Nov 28, 2018 - 3:25pm
Jeffrey Kelly
 
"No, rycK, the left wants more people to vote, the right doesn't’"
 
"No, that doesn’t mean illegals or dead people"
 
 
Wrong! The right does not want illegal aliens to vote, a process so precious  to California and other toilets that breaking the law for political gain is paramount.
 
I guess that you cannot admit that illegal aliens or multiple voting [NY folk moving to FL and  voting in both places]  is against the law and favors Democrats. I guess you are unaware of all the good votes from the graveyards in Chicago  that gave Dems massive power for decades.
 
Why not tell us that the hoards of people in caravans should be admitted to the US for humanitarian reasons or to escape crime. 
Bill Added Nov 28, 2018 - 6:01pm


Jeffrey Kelly 

 
"Actually, Bill, you are just one of the articles I thought of.  Ryan Messano posted one about denying women the right to vote."
 
Apologies - found that one later.  And I'd even agree that his was a bit more - drastic - than my suggestion.  Backwards is not an acceptable solution, nor is any solution which discriminates based on people's immutable / uncontrollable characteristics.
Bill Added Nov 28, 2018 - 6:05pm


Jeffrey Kelly 

 



"No, rycK, the left wants more people to vote, the right doesn’t."
 
That is inaccurate.  The left wants more people to vote when they think those additional voters will vote D.
 
"No, that doesn’t mean illegals or dead people.  Voter participation among those eligible to vote is less than 50%, this needs to be higher for a truly representative government."
 
That is certainly an opinion.  NOT voting is a valid vote, and the option not to vote is the sign that our society is actually a free society.  Only in tyrannical places are people required to vote.  Nor is the quality of voting improved by recruiting the bottom into the process, except in your mind.
Morgoth Added Nov 28, 2018 - 6:11pm
@rycK the JFK Democrat:
”Wrong! The right does not want illegal aliens to vote,”
 
No kidding.  I don’t either.  
 
“a process so precious  to California and other toilets that breaking the law for political gain is paramount.”
 
Oh, bullshit.  I know it upsets you when not everyone voted for Thud.  The reality is that voter fraud is rare.
 
“I guess that you cannot admit that illegal aliens or multiple voting [NY folk moving to FL and  voting in both places]  is against the law and favors Democrats.”
 
Why would I admit something that isn’t true?  Again, voter fraud is very rare and would not make much, if any, difference.
 
“I guess you are unaware of all the good votes from the graveyards in Chicago  that gave Dems massive power for decades.”
 
WOW, ALL IN CHICAGO????  That makes all the difference in the world!!!!!
 
“Why not tell us that the hoards of people in caravans should be admitted to the US for humanitarian reasons or to escape crime?”
 
Why are you assuming that I would?
Morgoth Added Nov 28, 2018 - 6:17pm
@Bill:
”"No, rycK, the left wants more people to vote, the right doesn’t."
 
That is inaccurate.  The left wants more people to vote when they think those additional voters will vote D.”
 
I don’t know all the left, Bill.  I would say that the left wants more participation.  The reality is in a state like mine most people vote Republican anyway, so it wouldn’t matter.  Yet I still saw the Democratic Party doing outreach, their candidates getting out in public, etc.
 
"No, that doesn’t mean illegals or dead people.  Voter participation among those eligible to vote is less than 50%, this needs to be higher for a truly representative government."
 
That is certainly an opinion.”
 
Sure.  But more voting = more people letting their politicians know that they approve or disapprove of their policies.  Sounds good to me.
 
“NOT voting is a valid vote, and the option not to vote is the sign that our society is actually a free society.”
 
Absolutely.  
 
“Only in tyrannical places are people required to vote.”
 
And only in tyrannies is the vote rigged or some not allowed to vote.
 
“Nor is the quality of voting improved by recruiting the bottom into the process, except in your mind.”
 
Why would you say “recruiting the bottom into the process,” Bill?  Are you saying that some are more equal than others?  Or better than?
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Nov 29, 2018 - 9:40am
JK and Bill
 
"@Bill:
”"No, rycK, the left wants more people to vote, the right doesn’t."
 
That is inaccurate.  The left wants more people to vote when they think those additional voters will vote D.”"
 
That is true and most illegal aliens vote D so my argument stands. 
Morgoth Added Nov 29, 2018 - 10:44am
@rycK the JFK Democrat:
”That is true and most illegal aliens vote D so my argument stands. ”
 
Illegal aliens aren’t allowed to vote, rycK.  That is a crime.  If you have knowledge of a crime you need to report it.
 
The reality is, rycK, that it’s a myth that huge numbers of illegals vote.  Undoubtedly some do or at least try to.  But enormous numbers?  No.  Voter fraud is rare in spite of the frantic hyperventilating the right goes through at every election.  Thud passes this around because it helps soothe his hurt feelings over losing the popular vote at the last election.  In his juvenile mind it is unacceptable that not everyone loves him as much as his beloved Trumplings.
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Nov 29, 2018 - 11:22am
"Illegal aliens aren’t allowed to vote, rycK.  That is a crime.  If you have knowledge of a crime you need to report it."
 
Non-citizens legally register to vote in San Francisco school elections
--https://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/article215095600.html
 
"
“This is no-brainer legislation,” Hillary Ronen, a San Francisco supervisor, told the Chronicle. “Why would we not want our parents invested in the education of their children?”
“We want to give immigrants the target="_blank">right to vote,” Norman Yee, also a county supervisor, told KGO."
 
Illegal immigrants get OK to vote in Maryland city's elections--https://www.foxnews.com/us/illegal-immigrants-get-ok-to-vote-in-maryland-citys-elections
Morgoth Added Nov 29, 2018 - 11:48am
That didn’t help you, rycK.  Those are for local elections regarding school boards and such.  
 
Oopsie.  Anything about national elections?  
 
BTW does this mean they automatically voted Democrat?
Morgoth Added Nov 29, 2018 - 11:52am
Oh, BTW, rycK, just a technical issue.  See the thing that looks like a paper clip on the far right of the comment box?
 
If you click that you can drop your link in like so:
In the “Text to display” you can give us a description
 
 
That just makes it easier for us to click your link instead of copying and pasting.
Bill Added Nov 29, 2018 - 1:38pm
@Jeffrey Kelly
 
“I don’t know all the left, Bill.  I would say that the left wants more participation.  The reality is in a state like mine most people vote Republican anyway, so it wouldn’t matter.  Yet I still saw the Democratic Party doing outreach, their candidates getting out in public, etc.”
 
Please don’t play coy.  The free benefits illegal immigrants here are a beacon to vote D.  There is a reason the D party did a 180 on their immigration policies over the past few decades.  And of course I’m not speaking of every individual person who happens to register D, so you are being disingenuous.
 
“Sure.  But more voting = more people letting their politicians know that they approve or disapprove of their policies.  Sounds good to me.”
 
Please provide evidence that the quality of the feedback improves in relation to the percentage of people voting irrespective of demographic?
 
“And only in tyrannies is the vote rigged or some not allowed to vote.”
 
Yep.  We nearly went there.  We still probably will.
  
“Why would you say “recruiting the bottom into the process,” Bill?  Are you saying that some are more equal than others?  Or better than?”
 
I’m saying what I have consistently said, that people unable to support themselves and dependent upon government assistance have, by definition, different priorities than those who are self-sufficient.  I am saying that those priorities conflict with what is best for the Nation, and therefore that taints their judgement in that process.  I call that the “bottom of the barrel.” 
 
And yes, in our society we already have several classes of people LESS equal than others – and we have judged it to be a good thing.  Minors are less equal under the law, as are ex-felons; persons committed to a mental institution; people adjudged to be incapable of handling their own affairs through due process of law.  I believe that those unable to survive unassisted by the State are for all practical purposes already Wards of the State; we should formally recognize that fact and with respect to voting they should be treated identically as are minors.
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Nov 29, 2018 - 2:15pm
JK
 
"That didn’t help you, rycK.  Those are for local elections regarding school boards and such.  "
 
But a step in the left direction is it not?
 
Their offspring vote. 
Morgoth Added Nov 29, 2018 - 2:21pm
@rycK the JFK Democrat:
”But a step in the left direction is it not?”
 
Again, didn’t help you.  There’s no proof that illegal aliens voted in large numbers in the last election...or any election.  Besides there is no guarantee that they will vote Democrat.  That’s you making an assumption.
 
“Their offspring vote.”
 
”Offspring?” You mean children, right?
 
Yes, as long as they were born in this country they can.  Being born in this country confers citizenship, rycK.  Doesn’t matter what the color of their skin is.
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Nov 29, 2018 - 2:32pm
19 Noncitizens Voted Illegally in 2016 in North Carolina, U.S. Charges
"
WASHINGTON — Nineteen foreign nationals ranging from age 26 to 71 have been charged with illegally voting in the November 2016 election in North Carolina, the Justice Department said Friday. Nine of the 19 were also charged with falsely claiming American citizenship to get on voter rolls.
 
A 20th man, whose nationality was not identified, was charged with helping one of the foreigners falsely claim citizenship.
 
The charges, listed in grand jury indictments issued last month, target citizens of 14 nations, including Japan, Germany, Mexico and Korea. At least nine of them lived in the United States as legal permanent residents. One other, 58-year-old Ramon Esteban Paez-Jerez of the Dominican Republic, had been deported in the 1980s, but returned under a false identity and gained citizenship in 1999."
 
How about a tip-of-the-iceberg cliche' here?
Morgoth Added Nov 29, 2018 - 2:35pm
@Bill:
”Please don’t play coy.”
 
How about shy?  Can I play shy?
 
“The free benefits illegal immigrants here are a beacon to vote D.”
 
Except that illegal immigrants don’t qualify for federal benefits like food stamps, Bill.  Their children do if they were born in the United Stamps because they are citizens.
 
Even legal immigrants don’t qualify nor do naturalized citizens for a period of five years.  It may be different for different programs but generally the term is five years.  There are exceptions but for the programs I am thinking of the period is five years.
 
Now, there are some temporary benefits that differ state by state.  For example in Oklahoma non-citizen women temporarily qualify for medical if they are due to have a baby.  It covers the birth and a brief period after (30 days if I remember correctly).  It’s been some time since I worked that program so it may no longer be in force.  California allows illegal children to access medical but that is a state benefit, not a federal one.
 
“There is a reason the D party did a 180 on their immigration policies over the past few decades.”
 
So has the Republican Party.  I remember Regan and Bush battling over it back in the day.  There are moderates in the Republican Party that favor a reasonable immigration policy, this is the same for other moderate Democrats.  I fall on the moderate side.  I favor citizenship or at least a fast path to citizenship for DREAMERS, along with an easier road for immigrants.  But I am a firm believer in immigration laws being enforced.
 
“And of course I’m not speaking of every individual person who happens to register D, so you are being disingenuous.”
 
Not really.  I notice that right-wingers lump us all together like we are one hive mind.  It’s obnoxious.
 
“Sure.  But more voting = more people letting their politicians know that they approve or disapprove of their policies.  Sounds good to me.”
 
“Please provide evidence that the quality of the feedback improves in relation to the percentage of people voting irrespective of demographic?”
 
”Quality of feedback?”  
 

Morgoth Added Nov 29, 2018 - 2:38pm
@rycK the JFK Democrat:
19 Noncitizens Voted Illegally in 2016 in North Carolina, U.S. Charges”
 
OMG, it’s like hell on earth.
 
How many people voted in North Carolina in the 2016 elections, rycK?
 
“How about a tip-of-the-iceberg cliche' here?”
 
Who did they vote for, rycK?
;)
Morgoth Added Nov 29, 2018 - 2:42pm
Here, let me help you, rycK:
North Carolina-Number of Ballots Cast 2016
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Nov 29, 2018 - 3:50pm
You digress. The theme was illegal voting and you seem to tell us this is not a problem!
 
As to who voted for whom we think the vote is still secret. But, that is a guess. 
 
Here are a few felons for you.........:
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/02/us/arrested-voting-north-carolina.html
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/10/us/illegal-voting-gets-texas-woman-8-years-in-prison-and-certain-deportation.html
 
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gladys-coego-tomika-curgil-miami-women-arrested-for-violating-election-laws/
 
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-fraud/three-in-florida-virginia-charged-with-voter-fraud-idUSKCN12S213
 
https://www.foxnews.com/us/mexican-woman-in-texas-sentenced-to-8-years-in-prison-for-voter-fraud
 
https://www.local10.com/news/elections/2-women-arrested-on-election-fraud-charges-in-miami-dade-county
 
How many of these are minorities??
Morgoth Added Nov 29, 2018 - 4:55pm
@rycK the JFK Democrat:
”You digress. The theme was illegal voting and you seem to tell us this is not a problem!”
 
It isn’t.  If four million people voted and North Carolina found 19 people that voted illegally then it is not a problem.  That’s a fraction of those who actually voted.  They made no difference.
 
As for how many were minorities I have no idea.  I don’t care, minority or not they committed a crime and deserve their punishment.
 
My common answer is this:
It is not a problem because the number of illegal voters is a fraction of those who vote.  They make no difference in the scheme of things.  BTW this includes all those who vote illegally, minority or not.
Morgoth Added Nov 29, 2018 - 5:00pm
Want to see something funny, rycK?  Guess who was investigated for potential voter fraud:
Lock Him Up!!!!!
Morgoth Added Nov 29, 2018 - 5:07pm
Morgoth Added Nov 29, 2018 - 5:09pm
Morgoth Added Nov 29, 2018 - 5:10pm
Morgoth Added Nov 29, 2018 - 5:13pm
Morgoth Added Nov 29, 2018 - 6:17pm
Sorry, Bill, I will finish my reply to you:
”“Why would you say “recruiting the bottom into the process,” Bill?  Are you saying that some are more equal than others?  Or better than?”
 
I’m saying what I have consistently said, that people unable to support themselves and dependent upon government assistance have, by definition, different priorities than those who are self-sufficient.  I am saying that those priorities conflict with what is best for the Nation, and therefore that taints their judgement in that process.  I call that the “bottom of the barrel.””
 
I see, so, those who receive benefits, those people are the “bottom of the barrel.”  Anyone who is poor, receives benefits and works at a disadvantage is, by your definition, “bottom of the barrel.”  They do not count in the scheme of things, they do not deserve the same rights as anyone else.  
 
In a way they are “life unworthy of life.”
Where have I seen that before????
 
They are a despised, despicable, lower class of people who, for whatever reason, do not deserve the same consideration as anyone else.
 
Wow, that kinda attitude is what made Nazi Germany famous!!!!!
 
“And yes, in our society we already have several classes of people LESS equal than others – and we have judged it to be a good thing.  Minors are less equal under the law, as are ex-felons; persons committed to a mental institution; people adjudged to be incapable of handling their own affairs through due process of law.”
 
Ah, there’s the ticket.  Except for minors everyone else on that list went through some form of due process that judged them incapable of dealing with their own affairs.  Naturally felons went through some form of due process where society judges them guilty of a crime and they forfeited a portion of their civil rights.  That’s common under most legal systems that I’m aware of.
 
“I believe that those unable to survive unassisted by the State are for all practical purposes already Wards of the State; we should formally recognize that fact and with respect to voting they should be treated identically as are minors.”
 
I see and will they be given some form of due process?  The people you are talking about would be, for the most part, of a majority age.  Or would this theoretical law simply judge all these people incapable without any sort of due process?
 
Here’s a conundrum for you, Bill.  A great many recipients of some type of “welfare” work and pay taxes of some sort.  Should people who pay taxes be excluded as voters?
 
Let me give you a real life example, Bill.  This is personal so maybe you can give me your opinion.
 
My oldest child receives disability.  Now, naturally, as his parents, my wife and I receive that in his name.  It helps offset the cost of his various treatments so we are the benefit of a type of welfare.  In addition both my children receive Medicare.  I have private insurance but it only covers so much.  It’s not such a big deal for my youngest son but my oldest son’s therapy costs ate us alive until we found out they both qualified.  We applied for SSI for him because we wanted to make sure he continued to receive medical after his 18th birthday.
 
Now, Bill, I work as a state employee.  I pay taxes.  Because my household receives a government benefit, should I forfeit my right to vote?
 
 
 
Morgoth Added Nov 30, 2018 - 10:18am
Bye, Gerrilea.  I took that comment as an insult towards my family.  You were warned not to go there.
Morgoth Added Nov 30, 2018 - 10:20am
BTW, no, I will not see a comment stating that I do not deserve to vote as an insult towards me or my family.  We can have a discussion about that.  But, just to reiterate, I will not, under any circumstances, tolerate insults or threats against my family.  Period, end of discussion.  They have nothing to do with WB and I’m particularly sensitive where my oldest son is concerned.
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Nov 30, 2018 - 10:23am
JK
 
 
'My common answer is this:
It is not a problem because the number of illegal voters is a fraction of those who vote. 
 
So, you admit you can tolerate illegal votes because it is a small problem. You might also confess to the illegal aliens evading border patrol and getting jobs in the US!
 
 You are [my common answer] a loyal liberal. 
 
 
Morgoth Added Nov 30, 2018 - 10:27am
And, just for clarification, that’s not a ban on Gerrilea from commenting on anything I write.  
Morgoth Added Nov 30, 2018 - 10:35am
@rycK the JFK Democrat:
”So, you admit you can tolerate illegal votes because it is a small problem.”
 
Who says I tolerate it?  Anyone caught voting illegally needs to be punished for breaking the law.
 
“You might also confess to the illegal aliens evading border patrol and getting jobs in the US!”
 
LOL, yer funny, rycK.  That’s a huge leap in logic.  It’s like you never read anything I wrote.
 
 “You are [my common answer] a loyal liberal.”
 
 
And you are a silly Trumpling rycK.
 
I realize you didn’t read anything I wrote.  That’s fine.
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Nov 30, 2018 - 11:07am
JK
 
So, you are for a strict reading of the law??
 
"
18 U.S. Code § 793 — Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information …
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer —  
Shall be fined not more than $10, 000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."
 
Should we jail her right now? Or do you want to let this go??
Ryan Messano Added Nov 30, 2018 - 12:28pm
Liberals are lazy and uninformed. Jeffrey is no exception. They compensate for their lack of intellect, which is a common trait of the lazy, as ‘Genius is an Infinite capacity for taking pains’, with impudent and belligerent pride.

They don’t know what they don’t know, and will force their stupid and nonsensical ideas down the throat of a protesting society by banding together with fellow ignoramuses. There are at least 22 liberals and RINOS on WB, and their combined corruption and ignorance makes it very tough for the truth to be heard and accepted. Until you put them in their place, they will constantly, like Jeffrey, launch impertinent attacks. Now, these loons are contenting themselves with calling me a loon, and imitating Athens, giving me an ostracism. Lol. Good luck with that.
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Nov 30, 2018 - 12:52pm
Ryan
 
" They compensate for their lack of intellect, which is a common trait of the lazy, as ‘Genius is an Infinite capacity for taking pains’, with impudent and belligerent pride."
 
I would think from experience [COS 63-64, UCLA 64, SF 65-66, SUNY 70-72, Yale 72-76] that their intellect is grounded wholly upon a transparent indoctrination of stale leftist dogma based on the need to grab as  much loot as they can from others under the stale guise of  'equality'  achieved through redistribution of  wealth. They cannot act without funding from others. 
 
"They don’t know what they don’t know, and will force their stupid and nonsensical ideas down the throat of a protesting society by banding together with fellow ignoramuses. "
 
Their knowledge base  is truncated to avoid any recognition of goodness the other citizens might contribute to our society outside of the narrow confines of progressivism. They have a  psychotic hatred of capitalism. The glue that binds liberals and their lackeys into a seemingly coherent but sticky mass is blind hatred for anything not of the far left, a flat denial of religious principles and gross ignorance of basic economic principles.  Thus they generate poverty, hate, debt, crimes of various sorts and social unrest through their misguided actions customarily aided by sloth, sodomy and drug addition where appropriate.
 
They are evil but not totally devoid of  logic and reason as long as the thinking processes are sanctioned by stale leftist dogma, a process we once knew as 'Free Speech,' which was narrowly defined.
 
They are hopeless parasites and a burden on any society that they attempt to destroy. 
Morgoth Added Nov 30, 2018 - 3:13pm
@rycK the JFK Democrat:
”Should we jail her right now? Or do you want to let this go??”
 
Why would I want to jail anyone “right now,” rycK?  Are you saying we should just toss someone into jail without due process?  
 
 
 
Morgoth Added Nov 30, 2018 - 3:15pm
Goodbye, Gerrilea.  Please do not comment on anything else I write.  I see no reason to allow someone like you to comment on something I write if you simply take the occasion to insult my family.
Morgoth Added Nov 30, 2018 - 3:21pm
@ Ryan Messano:
”Liberals are lazy and uninformed. Jeffrey is no exception.”
 
Well, I showed enough initiative to go out and actually find girlfriends and a wife, Ryan.  I never paid for it....unlike someone I know.
;)
 
“They compensate for their lack of intellect, which is a common trait of the lazy, as ‘Genius is an Infinite capacity for taking pains’, with impudent and belligerent pride.”
 
LOL
I like you, Ryan.  Yer funny.  

“They don’t know what they don’t know,”
 
Oh, I willingly admit when I don’t know something.
 
“There are at least 22 liberals and RINOS on WB, and their combined corruption and ignorance makes it very tough for the truth to be heard and accepted.”
 
Aaaawww, poor fellow.  
 
“Until you put them in their place, they will constantly, like Jeffrey, launch impertinent attacks.”
 
Do you think you put me in my place?
 
:)
 
“Now, these loons are contenting themselves with calling me a loon, and imitating Athens, giving me an ostracism. Lol. Good luck with that.”
 
You are always welcome to comment on my articles, Ryan.  I find your prattle entertaining.
Morgoth Added Nov 30, 2018 - 3:30pm
@rycK the JFK Democrat:
 
”Their knowledge base  is truncated to avoid any recognition of goodness the other citizens might contribute to our society outside of the narrow confines of progressivism.”
 
Really????
 
“They have a  psychotic hatred of capitalism.”
 
We do????? 
Hey, don’t toss me in with that group.  I like money.
 
“The glue that binds liberals and their lackeys into a seemingly coherent but sticky mass is blind hatred for anything not of the far left,”
 
Like the hatred and fear-mongering that the right uses to frighten the gullible into voting them into office again and again?
 
“a flat denial of religious principles”
 
When I see what religion has done to you and Ryan, yes, I reject it.  Nothing wrong with religion, it’s people like you that fucked it up.
 
“and gross ignorance of basic economic principles.”
 
Well, considering what Republicans do when they have the opportunity, yes, I reject their economic principles.  I live in a red state, rycK.  I see what the end result of “conservative economic principles” really means.
 


 
“They are hopeless parasites and a burden on any society that they attempt to destroy.”
 
 
There’s that fear-mongering I like to see.  I also see what you want to do to us but haven’t bothered to say.


 
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Nov 30, 2018 - 4:14pm
No meaningful retorts on the major issues here but a simple guttural knee-jerk reflexive retort: my donkey's crap smells better than  yours  couched in terms I noted when dealing with the far left. 
 
JK: "“They have a  psychotic hatred of capitalism.”
 
We do????? "
 
Are you learned in progressive ideology on this point? How is  your training progressing in progressive terms?
 
Many times some of us wonder if the leftist posters on this thread are duly grounded on current liberal or progressive thinking norms.
 
Standard leftist theory:
 
"The progressive economic philosophy is typically defined in opposition to economic liberalism (known in some countries as economic libertarianism), laissez-faire and the conclusions of the Austrian School of economics. Many organizations that promote economic progressivism can be characterized as anti-capitalist and include principles and policies based on KeynesianismMarxism and other left-wing schools of socio-economic thought."--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_progressivism
 
So,you break out from your current designated slot in the leftist chain gang and now like capitalism, or, did  you mean you like the money  you get some from taxes, government largess or handouts, food stamps and such? Did you miss training on Keynesianism and Marxism? It is never too late to learn the basics of your forced or adopted views. 
 
Do you get money from employment, dividends and such from corporations?? Please do not shock us by telling us you have your own business! [I had 4, 2 of which were corporations].
 
Clarity here if you can manage it: do you approve of capitalism the way it is practiced in the US and what would you substitute in its place?? Or are you reading Bernie or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez?
 
Morgoth Added Nov 30, 2018 - 4:51pm
@ryck the JFK Democrat:
”No meaningful retorts on the major issues here”
 
When I see something meaningful to retort to I will.  What I’ve seen from you and Ryan is the usual BS.  I don’t see any reason to retort to crap when that’s what I see:
Crap.
 
I rebutted the voting garbage but the wide swinging in the dark I see no reason to.
 
“So,you break out from your current designated slot in the leftist chain gang and now like capitalism,”
 
WTF are you babbling about?  I’m me, as in an individual person.  I agree with much of the Democratic platform but disagree with some of it as well.  I agree with some of the Republican platform but disagree with much of it.  I’m my own person, rycK, I don’t share a hive mind with others on the left.  This is just a silly stereotype that you believe.  
 
“or, did  you mean you like the money  you get some from taxes, government largess or handouts, food stamps and such?”
 
Silly rycK.
I’ve worked since I was 17-years-old.  I supported myself throughout my university years by working both full and part-time jobs.  My parents made me pay for my first two years of college out of my own pocket.  I bought my own vehicles, sweated paying my own bills and rent and carried that through to my adult life.  I received unemployment once when the company I worked for went under, I never received SNAP benefits and do not do so now.
 
My oldest child receives SSI for a disability that helps offset his cost and my children are on Medicare because they qualify for it.  But I work a full-time job that I’ve had for 15 years now.  I’m solidly middle-class (at least that’s what they tell me).  I have no vices, I don’t cheat on my wife and my only hobby is reading history.
 
“Did you miss training on target="_blank">Keynesianism and target="_blank">Marxism? It is never too late to learn the basics of your forced or adopted views.”
 
Silly rycK.  I have no forced or adopted views.  
 
I’ve read Keynes and Marx.  I think Marx is outdated and I think Keynes is right during periods of economic downturn but once things right themselves it needs to be dialed back.
 
“Do you get money from employment,”
 
I just answered that.
 
“dividends and such from corporations??”
 
Why?  Do corporations need my help?  Well, other than when the economy goes down the toilet and they come begging for help.
 
[I had 4, 2 of which were corporations].”
 
Good for you, do you want a cookie?
 
“Clarity here if you can manage it: do you approve of capitalism the way it is practiced in the US and what would you substitute in its place?? Or are you reading Bernie or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez?”
 
Sure.
I have no issues with capitalism as it is practiced in the US.  What I want is the tax code fixed so that the wealthy and corporate world pays the lion’s share of the taxes.  My feeling is that those who have more should pay more.  
 
Furthermore I say close all loopholes that allow exorbitant right-offs and tax dodging by the above.  
 
I also say that we need money put into education and programs that help the poor become self-sustaining.  I have no problem with the safety net being adjusted to end fraud and abuse.  Yes, I say those that can work should do so but give them the tools they need.  I see no reason to allow children to be used as assets to leverage more benefits, if you are receiving benefits then we only take care of those children you have when you applied (including pregnancy).
 
That’s it in a nutshell, rycK.  I doubt you will read it because you already have preconceived notions of who I am and what I believe in.
Morgoth Added Dec 1, 2018 - 11:01am
Nope.
Morgoth Added Dec 1, 2018 - 11:20am
LOL, good luck with that, now deleted Gerrilea.  My comments are scattered through the day.  The comments are consistent with me taking breaks, lunch, before and after work.  I wrote my last article last night on Friday.
Doug Plumb Added Dec 1, 2018 - 2:04pm
re "What I want is the tax code fixed so that the wealthy and corporate world pays the lion’s share of the taxes.  My feeling is that those who have more should pay more."
 
I agree with that. Unfettered capitalism is as dangerous as socialism.
 
I would have no issue with the income tax and be glad to pay my fair share if it was actually a tax and actually paid for the roads, hospitals and the poor. It is not, it pays for wars and foreign occupations. Not only that, the banksters lent us our own money - like a donkey that has to work for his own hay as well as the master (which is of course always the case). They lent us nothing.
Without it, the world would be very different today.
Doug Plumb Added Dec 1, 2018 - 2:04pm
We no longer live in a horse and buggy world.
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Dec 1, 2018 - 2:23pm
JK
 
That’s it in a nutshell, rycK.  I doubt you will read it because you already have preconceived notions of who I am and what I believe in.
 
We know what  you believe in from your own words. 
 
"...we need money put into education and programs that help the poor become self-sustaining."
 
50% flunk out rate in inner city schools and 1/2 college attendees do not graduate but retain their student debt. That is a farce and a give-away  to the ignoranti, sick, lame and lazy.  This buys votes for the left. 
 
"I have no problem with the safety net being adjusted to end fraud and abuse."  
 
This is not happening. I suppose you support the welfare rights ideas and illegal immigration as well. 
 
"Yes, I say those that can work should do so but give them the tools they need. "
 
Job Corps?! Welfare? Phony grants?? How many of these programs are more than 50% successful?
 
"I see no reason to allow children to be used as assets to leverage more benefits, if you are receiving benefits then we only take care of those children you have when you applied (including pregnancy)."
 
So you are against screwing for dollars and maybe using children to gain entrance to the US, free health care and welfare. 
 
All government give-aways designed to buy vote with my tax monies.  Liberalism in the shade. 
Morgoth Added Dec 1, 2018 - 2:39pm
@rycK the JFK:
We know what  you believe in from your own words. 
 
"...we need money put into education and programs that help the poor become self-sustaining."
 
50% flunk out rate in inner city schools and 1/2 college attendees do not graduate but retain their student debt. That is a farce and a give-away  to the ignoranti, sick, lame and lazy.  This buys votes for the left.”
 
Typical right-winger, keep people stupid so they won’t vote or vote for you.  That’s where the fear-mongering comes in.
 
"I have no problem with the safety net being adjusted to end fraud and abuse."  
 
This is not happening. I suppose you support the welfare rights ideas”
 
I support logical and intelligent reform.
 
 
“and illegal immigration as well.”
 
See, yet fucking again this is the part where you prove that you don’t read what I write.  I said immigration laws need enforcement.  For the last fucking time I do not support illegal immigration.
 
"Yes, I say those that can work should do so but give them the tools they need. "
 
Job Corps?! Welfare? Phony grants?? How many of these programs are more than 50% successful?”
 
50% is actually really good.  If it get 5 out of 10 off the roles then that’s a good start.
 
"I see no reason to allow children to be used as assets to leverage more benefits, if you are receiving benefits then we only take care of those children you have when you applied (including pregnancy)."
 
So you are against screwing for dollars and maybe using children to gain entrance to the US, free health care and welfare.”
 
Now, I support assisting children.  Yes, they need medical.  But no bigger section 8 housing for having more kids and the benefits only benefit the children.  There also needs to be a requirement for training, employment or education.
 

rycK the JFK Democrat Added Dec 1, 2018 - 2:47pm
JK
 
JFK:  "50% flunk out rate in inner city schools and 1/2 college attendees do not graduate but retain their student debt. That is a farce and a give-away  to the ignoranti, sick, lame and lazy.  This buys votes for the left.”
 
JK: Typical right-winger, keep people stupid so they won’t vote or vote for you.  That’s where the fear-mongering comes in."
 
Typical leftist retort based on liberal bias and ignoring the substance of my comment. The correct response would be to not give walking-around monies to people who do not belong in college.
 
JFK DEm: "Job Corps?! Welfare? Phony grants?? How many of these programs are more than 50% successful?”
 
JK: 50% is actually really good.  If it get 5 out of 10 off the roles then that’s a good start."
 
A crass confirmation of a failed program. I suppose you would keep the US Post Office around with such a record of delivering only half the mail or praise a crime program that only caught 1/2 of the  muggers,  drug dealers or murderers. 
 
A frustrated liberal shouts out the party line! Nothing new here. 
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Dec 1, 2018 - 2:51pm
JK
 
" I said immigration laws need enforcement.  For the last fucking time I do not support illegal immigration."
 
Does that mean you support the Wall and if not then how do you stop illegal immigration??
 
Send more aid money to Central America?
Doug Plumb Added Dec 1, 2018 - 4:58pm
I think the fact that, like everything else, liberalism has been corrupted.
As far as choosing a career path, people should take some kind of IQ test so that they choose something in line with their own intelligence so that failure is unlikely and job dissatisfaction unlikely. But the crooked left would not allow this kind of labelling.
 
Liberalism in and of itself is not bad, just our version of it.
Morgoth Added Dec 2, 2018 - 12:33am
@rycK the JFK Democrat:
”The correct response would be to not give walking-around monies to people who do not belong in college.”
 
Uh, no.  The response is tailored to the individual.  Some people can’t handle college, this is where they need guidance.  There’s no point in going to college if you want to fix cars.  


 
 
“A crass confirmation of a failed program.”
 
How is a 50% success rate a failure?
 
“I suppose you would keep the US Post Office around with such a record of delivering only half the mail”
 
Um, no, because the Post Office requires a higher standard due to the nature of what it does.
 
“or praise a crime program that only caught 1/2 of the  muggers,  drug dealers or murderers.”
 
Again, we are looking at a different standard.  A crime program that cuts the crime rate in half is a success, a hospital where only 50% of the patients survive is a deep matter of concern.
 
“A frustrated liberal shouts out the party line! Nothing new here.”
 
It really is amazing, rycK is determined not to read or comprehend anything I write.




 
 


 
" I said immigration laws need enforcement.  For the last fucking time I do not support illegal immigration."
 
“Does that mean you support the Wall.”  
 
No.  Why?  It’s impractical and a waste.  Walls can be tunneled under or climbed over.  Walls fail where geography prevents them.  It’ll disrupt the ecosystem and get hung up in the court system for years.  It’s a waste of time and money.
 
 
“if not then how do you stop illegal immigration??”
 
Stopping it is impossible.  But putting more money into human and electronic assets will undoubtedly help it.
 
 



rycK the JFK Democrat Added Dec 2, 2018 - 2:52pm
JK
 
"" I said immigration laws need enforcement.  For the last fucking time I do not support illegal immigration."
 
rycK: “Does that mean you support the Wall.”   
  
JK: No.  Why?  It’s impractical and a waste. "
 
Here we wonder why a wall would be impractical if, indeed, it prevents thousands or millions of illegal aliens to get jobs and free goodies after committing 3 crimes:
 
 
[1] illegally entering the US,
[2] stealing SS numbers,
[3] lying about tax statements on W2 and not submitting returns to avoid the inevitable interference and investigations by the IRS.
 
"But, you ...do not support illegal immigration."
 
It appears that this closely follows the determined leftist dogma here, which allows illegal aliens to have jobs and vote and have children who can vote legally.
 
This is what a leftist would say, in my view,  if trying to disguise their true beliefs. 
 
 
Morgoth Added Dec 2, 2018 - 3:40pm
@rycK the JFK Democrat:
rycK: “Does that mean you support the Wall.”   
  
JK: No.  Why?  It’s impractical and a waste. "
 
Here we wonder why a wall would be impractical if,”
 
It is impractical for the reasons stated above.  A wall sits there, is easy to see and fairly easy to defeat if someone is determined enough to defeat it.  But increased drone use, border patrols, cameras and fixing the available barriers will help.  It is also far less expensive and much easier to get funding for the above items.  A wall is nothing more than raw meat tossed towards gullible Trumplings and conservative whackadoodles.
 
“indeed, it prevents thousands or millions”
 
LOL, this is rycK drinking the Trumpling Cool-Aid.
 
 
“of illegal aliens to get jobs”
 
You mean like scrubbing toilets and picking oranges?  
 
“and free goodies”
 
Illegal aliens can’t qualify for federal programs.  For the hundredth millionth time.
 
“after committing 3 crimes:
 
 
[1] illegally entering the US,”
 
Yes, this is a crime.

“[2] stealing SS numbers,”
 
Yes, this is also a crime.

“[3] lying about tax statements on W2 and not submitting returns to avoid the inevitable interference and investigations by the IRS.”
 
This is also a crime.
 

 
"But, you ...do not support illegal immigration."
 
No, I do not.  I say support current immigration laws with the perpetrators punished appropriately.
 
“It appears that this closely follows the determined leftist dogma here, which allows illegal aliens to have jobs and vote and have children who can vote legally.
 
This is what a leftist would say, in my view,  if trying to disguise their true beliefs.”
 
 
It’s funny, rycK.  I say things like current immigration laws need enforcement, voice objections to a wall and give cheaper alternatives (hey, let’s save money!!!!) and you still persist in your delusions.
 
So, basically you are incapable of basic reading comprehension.  Typical silly Trumpling.
 
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Dec 2, 2018 - 3:59pm
JK
 
"It’s funny, rycK.  I say things like current immigration laws need enforcement, voice objections to a wall and give cheaper alternatives (hey, let’s save money!!!!) and you still persist in your delusions."
 
Your "objections to a wall" in no way  open a pathway to stop illegal immigration!!
 
How do you support "current immigration laws," obvious tools of the left, which demand 'catch and release' and stop the obvious rewards for illegal entry?
 
I see frantic ways, in your responses, to persist in attaining leftist goals while still offering the transparent illusion that you want to stop illegal immigration. What is 'cheap'  about the consequences of allowing catch and release?
 
Is the wall too expensive to prevent a wholesale invasion of aliens from Central and South America, accompanied by an occasional terrorist or drug mule? 
 
What is the cost of harboring illegal aliens, providing free health care and schooling, battling drug addiction, murders of our citizens and crimes from the likes of MS-13??
 
I think that is more than the wall cost. 
 
You seem to remain solidly mired in leftist dogma. 
Morgoth Added Dec 2, 2018 - 4:31pm
@rycK the JFK Democrat:
”Your "objections to a wall" in no way  open a pathway to stop illegal immigration!!”
 
Sure they do.  BTW there is no way to stop illegal immigration.  You can curtail it somewhat but the reality is that people want to come to this country and will find ways to get here.  That includes either under or over your precious wall.
 
“How do you support "current immigration laws," obvious tools of the left,”
 
LOL, obvious??? 
 
“which demand 'catch and release' and stop the obvious rewards for illegal entry?”
 
Catch and release seems more like a pragmatic way to prevent overcrowding in jails, prisons or, “internment” (concentration) camps.
 
“I see frantic ways, in your responses,”
 
Hardly frantic.  I’m at least taking the time to read your responses and respond to them rather than assuming (like you do) that you said something that you didn’t.
 
“to persist in attaining leftist goals while still offering the transparent illusion that you want to stop illegal immigration.”
 
I hardly find it practical to “stop” illegal immigration.  I want to contain it but as I stated above I think it’s unrealistic to stop it.  What I want is laws enforced so that those that are caught are deported back to their home countries.  If that person committed a crime while here I want them sentenced and spend their time in prison...and then deported.  If they committed murder then they can serve life or get the death penalty, whichever is more appropriate.  Or whatever sentence the court deems appropriate.
 
 
“Is the wall too expensive”
 
Yes.  And Mexico will never pay a fucking dime, rycK.  Or did you think they would?  So the whole price falls on the American tax payer when that money could go to something that actually benefits Americans instead of a monument to Thud’s ego and your fears.
 
“to prevent a wholesale invasion of aliens from Central and South America,”
 
Wholesale??????????  LOL
 
 
“accompanied by an occasional terrorist or drug mule?”
 
Now, see that’s actually reasonable.  Yes, I realize there is that threat which is why I do favor border security.
 
“What is the cost of harboring illegal aliens, providing free health care”
 
Only California, AFAIK, allows illegal children to get healthcare.  
 
“and schooling,”
 
Well, kids gotta learn, rycK.  I admit on this I am a full-blown liberal.  I have no issues taking care of children...but only in the context where it is permitted by law.  The Supreme Court says that education is important enough that citizenship is not an important enough reason not to educate.  Illegal children do not receive the SNAP benefit allotted to the household nor are they permitted to get daycare subsidies.
 
“battling drug addiction,”
 
Well, that’s a universal problem, rycK.  Until we wean our citizens off drugs it won’t matter who supplies them.
 
“murders of our citizens and crimes from the likes of MS-13??”
 
OK, MS-13 is terrible.  But what would you like to do with the Aryan Brotherhood, Bloods, Crips, etc.?  They are also involved in the drug trade and they are homegrown.  
 

 “You seem to remain solidly mired in leftist dogma.”
 
Well, that’s your opinion and you know what they say opinions.  Just like assholes everyone has them.
 
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Dec 3, 2018 - 11:26am
"Catch and release seems more like a pragmatic way to prevent overcrowding in jails, prisons or, “internment” (concentration) camps."
 
What about the Rule of Law?
 
"OK, MS-13 is terrible.  But what would you like to do with the Aryan Brotherhood, Bloods, Crips, etc.?  They are also involved in the drug trade and they are homegrown.  "
 
Execute them all.
 
You cannot longer disguise your narrow leftist training and agreement with their dogmas. 
 
 
Bill Added Dec 4, 2018 - 10:33am


Doug Plumb 

 



"I think the fact that, like everything else, liberalism has been corrupted.
As far as choosing a career path, people should take some kind of IQ test so that they choose something in line with their own intelligence so that failure is unlikely and job dissatisfaction unlikely. But the crooked left would not allow this kind of labelling.
 
Liberalism in and of itself is not bad, just our version of it."
 
First, today's left as defined by Democrat party policies are no longer "liberals," they are "progressives."  The two are actually mutually exclusive.  I for example am a Classical Liberal.
 
As far as testing for careers, to some degree it already happens.  With respect to some formalized kind of testing the problem is always, who decides?  Human beings are strange creatures, and oftentimes the quickest path to success is through repeated failure.  A free market is the greatest Democracy ever devised - hard-over leftists only hate it because it reveals that people really don't want what they are selling, which can only be "sold" through force (government laws and regulations).