Leftists owe the rest of us an explanation for the Florida shooting

[Moonglow]

I'm sorry do you need a reminder to post where in the Constitution it says a felon can not vote or buy and own a gun?

I've answered it probably 9 times now.

The fifth amendment. How can a "criminal justice" major POSSIBLY not know that?

There is NOTHING in the 5th Amendment that answers my question. The law about felons owning guns is a federal law, not included in the Constitution, and the law regarding felons being able to vote is deferred to the states.

I take it you can't read? I posted it.

You took Criminal Justice and you don't know what:

The fifth amendment.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

For god fucking sakes, what is wrong with you? How does a CRIMINAL JUSTICE major possibly have to repeatedly ask that?

Seriously, what is wrong with you? Have you had a stroke?

Yet cops and the judicial system abuse the 5th on asset forfeiture daily and you say not a word about it..

I have no idea if Kaz has ever said a word about asset forfeiture or not. And neither do you. And could this BE any more extraneous to the topic of this thread? Do you have something to say on the subject of school shootings at all?

I did sixty pages ago..

 

[kaz]

Social Security is at least a program that requires MOST of the people who receive benefits from it to have put something into it in order to get them, so it is different from welfare in that regard

This is the part of your post that is factually wrong.

The money they paid in was spent as it was received, no money was ever saved.

Welfare: 100% of the amount paid is paid by current taxpayers

Social Security: 100% of the amount paid is paid by current taxpayers

You cannot refute that. It's a fact

I didn't say that wasn't the case. I said most of those who get Social Security have put something in, and they have, the fact that our incompetent government immediately spent it instead of putting it aside like they promised to notwithstanding.

If by "put something in" you don't mean that they ever saved any money, then I don't know what you're taying. You're very precise in your language, I usually do.

Social Security can be a hard one because you want to believe that somehow all the money you're paying into for it makes it somehow justified that they take your children's money and give it to you later, even if as in your case you'd prefer they do away with both.

1) Did I "put something in" when I pay income taxes? It works exactly the same way. They spend the money as it comes in. Why isn't that a savings plan?

2) How can anyone have "put something in" when not one dime of the money they will ever receive in social security checks was their own money? I will get a GE pension. Part of my wages were company contributions to my pension plan. That is saved and invested. Social Security is entirely different. You pay, they steal later from your children

3) Again,

1973 - income taxes, spent as they come in
1973 - social security taxes, spent as they come in

2018 - welfare check, all money comes from taxpayers
2018 - social security check, all money comes from taxpayers.

Two programs that work EXACTLY the same way. How can one be welfare and the other not?

Sure, politicians lied to you. That doesn't change the nature of what social security is.

Our parents gave us a tip. Psst, do the same to your kids. I don't want to do that. Regardless of the decades I've paid social security, I don't want to use that to justify stealing from my children

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'm for drug-testing of welfare recipients as well. A noticeable difference between the two scenarios is that drug-testing does not require the voluntary or coerced surrendering of any actual Constitutional rights, and certainly not a surrendering in perpetuity.

Personally, I consider my dislike of the Social Security system on Constitutional grounds to be a separate matter from my belief that requiring people to give up their rights in order to apply for assistance from them is Unconstitutional. Whatever I may think of the system, it IS the system at this time, and it's both ludicrous and outrageous to demand that, in order to access the existing system, people must give away their rights as citizens.

Again, if one wants to keep violently mentally ill people from owning guns, then it MUST be done on a case-by-case basis, by the proper authorities, through the proper procedures, with the appropriate level of evidence and justification. Application for disability benefits meets none of those standards.

Amazing that people that write the laws for drug testing welfare applicants claim that they will not take drugs tests because it is unconstitutional....Yeah those elitist have rights but the plebs not so much...

What the fuck are you babbling about?

A brook..

Are you bored?

No sawdust..

 

[kaz]

"laws" cannot violate due process, that doesn't even make sense. And you have a criminal justice degree? Did you get this degree in Iran?

I'm sorry do you need a reminder to post where in the Constitution it says a felon can not vote or buy and own a gun?

I've answered it probably 9 times now.

The fifth amendment. How can a "criminal justice" major POSSIBLY not know that?

There is NOTHING in the 5th Amendment that answers my question. The law about felons owning guns is a federal law, not included in the Constitution, and the law regarding felons being able to vote is deferred to the states.

I take it you can't read? I posted it.

You took Criminal Justice and you don't know what:

The fifth amendment.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

For god fucking sakes, what is wrong with you? How does a CRIMINAL JUSTICE major possibly have to repeatedly ask that?

Seriously, what is wrong with you? Have you had a stroke?

Yet cops and the judicial system abuse the 5th on asset forfeiture daily and you say not a word about it..

OMG, it sucks to be you. I just totally own you, squirt. That's a lie. Here are two. You know the site has a search feature you could use before you show yourself to be the lying dick that you are

Asset forfeiture is a terrible policy which violates due process and is easily abused by corrupt government employees. Like they really need more encouragement....

Sure! Lets help criminals as much as possible.

Once again you show you are an authoritarian leftist, not a liberal. Due process? Constitution? What Constitution?

So does anyone think asset forfeiture is a good policy? There occurs when law enforcement charges someone with a crime and seizes their assets. Sometimes people arent even charged. Just a seizure. Then there is an extensive ad expensive procedure to appeal and get the asset back. With any luck.
On the plus side, it brings millions of dollars to law enforcement agencies who often struggle with budget cuts.
So what do people think?

It's prima facie unconstitutional

 

[kaz]

That's an absurd analogy. Mental illness and gun violence undoubtedly go hand in hand. Not every person with a MI will become violent, but a MI by definition may result in irrational behavior. The only appropriate question for limiting rights to those with MI diagnosis is what is the temporal connection? A person diagnosed with depression, for example, twenty years ago but who has been successfully treated should not have any limitation.

Felons acted to break the law because they rationally chose to do so. People with MI never broke any laws ... at least in relation to their MI. Or they could be both MI and felons.

Having rights limited without a trial does not necessarily implicate due process. Any assertion a trial is required is just wrong. A person has to have a way to challenge it, though.

Personally I feel that if a person signs up and gets a government check for a mental illness they are deciding to give away their right to own a gun, not only for the safety of others but for their own safety. The law that was passed, was only for that group of people. Now if they decided that owning a gun is more important to them than being labeled as disabled, and they decided to go back to work, I'd be okay with them owning a gun as long as they got a psychiatrist or psychologist to sign off a waiver.

Personally, I THINK that leftists spend entirely too damned much time "feeling" things and expecting the rest of us to treat it as important and meaningful. Here's a newsflash for you, Chuckles: we don't give a fat rat's furry ass what you "feel" about anything, and neither does the Constitution.

But by all means, if you think it's a winning argument to tell Americans, "Hey, I think it would be smashing if we made sick people afraid to apply for government assistance", you just go right on with that.

Well, I do draw a massive line between people who were employed by the government, particularly military, and people who want government to redistribute other people's money their way, like social security and other welfare programs.

I don't mind at all discouraging the latter. I'm for drug testing of welfare recipients too for the same reason

I'm for drug-testing of welfare recipients as well. A noticeable difference between the two scenarios is that drug-testing does not require the voluntary or coerced surrendering of any actual Constitutional rights, and certainly not a surrendering in perpetuity.

Personally, I consider my dislike of the Social Security system on Constitutional grounds to be a separate matter from my belief that requiring people to give up their rights in order to apply for assistance from them is Unconstitutional. Whatever I may think of the system, it IS the system at this time, and it's both ludicrous and outrageous to demand that, in order to access the existing system, people must give away their rights as citizens.

Again, if one wants to keep violently mentally ill people from owning guns, then it MUST be done on a case-by-case basis, by the proper authorities, through the proper procedures, with the appropriate level of evidence and justification. Application for disability benefits meets none of those standards.

Amazing that people that write the laws for drug testing welfare applicants claim that they will not take drugs tests because it is unconstitutional....Yeah those elitist have rights but the plebs not so much...

What the hell does that say? Dude, you are the worst writer on the site. What's funny is how when I ask you what you even said you come back with even more broken English.

Your reading what you wrote doesn't seem to help. How is it possible and old fart like you can't write a coherent sentence?

 

[kaz]

I'm sorry do you need a reminder to post where in the Constitution it says a felon can not vote or buy and own a gun?

I've answered it probably 9 times now.

The fifth amendment. How can a "criminal justice" major POSSIBLY not know that?

There is NOTHING in the 5th Amendment that answers my question. The law about felons owning guns is a federal law, not included in the Constitution, and the law regarding felons being able to vote is deferred to the states.

I take it you can't read? I posted it.

You took Criminal Justice and you don't know what:

The fifth amendment.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

For god fucking sakes, what is wrong with you? How does a CRIMINAL JUSTICE major possibly have to repeatedly ask that?

Seriously, what is wrong with you? Have you had a stroke?

Yet cops and the judicial system abuse the 5th on asset forfeiture daily and you say not a word about it..

I have no idea if Kaz has ever said a word about asset forfeiture or not. And neither do you. And could this BE any more extraneous to the topic of this thread? Do you have something to say on the subject of school shootings at all?

Thanks. I'm strongly against asset forfeiture. And I've said so. I gave moon bat a couple quotes, you may have seen them already.

He's a liar. Making things up is lying. And in this case, he could have looked less stupid by just typing "asset forfeiture" and "kaz" into the search feature

 

[kaz]

I'm sorry do you need a reminder to post where in the Constitution it says a felon can not vote or buy and own a gun?

I've answered it probably 9 times now.

The fifth amendment. How can a "criminal justice" major POSSIBLY not know that?

There is NOTHING in the 5th Amendment that answers my question. The law about felons owning guns is a federal law, not included in the Constitution, and the law regarding felons being able to vote is deferred to the states.

I take it you can't read? I posted it.

You took Criminal Justice and you don't know what:

The fifth amendment.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

For god fucking sakes, what is wrong with you? How does a CRIMINAL JUSTICE major possibly have to repeatedly ask that?

Seriously, what is wrong with you? Have you had a stroke?

Yet cops and the judicial system abuse the 5th on asset forfeiture daily and you say not a word about it..

Because civil asset forfeiture has nothing to do with his argument, Moonie. Don't change the subject.

He's double stupid, he was wrong. I'm strongly against asset forfeiture and have said so.

He'd also look less stupid if he learned to write so we didn't have to try to figure out what his broken English even means.

I think he starts with a sarcastic idea and gets so lost in it he forgets to write any actual content around it to understand what he's even being sarcastic about

 

[kaz]

Personally I feel that if a person signs up and gets a government check for a mental illness they are deciding to give away their right to own a gun, not only for the safety of others but for their own safety. The law that was passed, was only for that group of people. Now if they decided that owning a gun is more important to them than being labeled as disabled, and they decided to go back to work, I'd be okay with them owning a gun as long as they got a psychiatrist or psychologist to sign off a waiver.

Personally, I THINK that leftists spend entirely too damned much time "feeling" things and expecting the rest of us to treat it as important and meaningful. Here's a newsflash for you, Chuckles: we don't give a fat rat's furry ass what you "feel" about anything, and neither does the Constitution.

But by all means, if you think it's a winning argument to tell Americans, "Hey, I think it would be smashing if we made sick people afraid to apply for government assistance", you just go right on with that.

Well, I do draw a massive line between people who were employed by the government, particularly military, and people who want government to redistribute other people's money their way, like social security and other welfare programs.

I don't mind at all discouraging the latter. I'm for drug testing of welfare recipients too for the same reason

I'm for drug-testing of welfare recipients as well. A noticeable difference between the two scenarios is that drug-testing does not require the voluntary or coerced surrendering of any actual Constitutional rights, and certainly not a surrendering in perpetuity.

Personally, I consider my dislike of the Social Security system on Constitutional grounds to be a separate matter from my belief that requiring people to give up their rights in order to apply for assistance from them is Unconstitutional. Whatever I may think of the system, it IS the system at this time, and it's both ludicrous and outrageous to demand that, in order to access the existing system, people must give away their rights as citizens.

Again, if one wants to keep violently mentally ill people from owning guns, then it MUST be done on a case-by-case basis, by the proper authorities, through the proper procedures, with the appropriate level of evidence and justification. Application for disability benefits meets none of those standards.

Amazing that people that write the laws for drug testing welfare applicants claim that they will not take drugs tests because it is unconstitutional....Yeah those elitist have rights but the plebs not so much...

What the fuck are you babbling about?

I know, right? He can't write a coherent sentence to save his life. On one occasion, I had to ask him to clarify twice what he said. The third time I guessed. From his reaction it sounded like I did finally piece together what his broken English meant

 

[TemplarKormac]

I've answered it probably 9 times now.

The fifth amendment. How can a "criminal justice" major POSSIBLY not know that?

There is NOTHING in the 5th Amendment that answers my question. The law about felons owning guns is a federal law, not included in the Constitution, and the law regarding felons being able to vote is deferred to the states.

I take it you can't read? I posted it.

You took Criminal Justice and you don't know what:

The fifth amendment.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

For god fucking sakes, what is wrong with you? How does a CRIMINAL JUSTICE major possibly have to repeatedly ask that?

Seriously, what is wrong with you? Have you had a stroke?

Yet cops and the judicial system abuse the 5th on asset forfeiture daily and you say not a word about it..

Because civil asset forfeiture has nothing to do with his argument, Moonie. Don't change the subject.

He's double stupid, he was wrong. I'm strongly against asset forfeiture and have said so.

He'd also look less stupid if he learned to write so we didn't have to try to figure out what his broken English even means.

I think he starts with a sarcastic idea and gets so lost in it he forgets to write any actual content around it to understand what he's even being sarcastic about

Essentially an effort to derail your thread.

 

[Moonglow]

There is NOTHING in the 5th Amendment that answers my question. The law about felons owning guns is a federal law, not included in the Constitution, and the law regarding felons being able to vote is deferred to the states.

I take it you can't read? I posted it.

You took Criminal Justice and you don't know what:

The fifth amendment.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

For god fucking sakes, what is wrong with you? How does a CRIMINAL JUSTICE major possibly have to repeatedly ask that?

Seriously, what is wrong with you? Have you had a stroke?

Yet cops and the judicial system abuse the 5th on asset forfeiture daily and you say not a word about it..

Because civil asset forfeiture has nothing to do with his argument, Moonie. Don't change the subject.

He's double stupid, he was wrong. I'm strongly against asset forfeiture and have said so.

He'd also look less stupid if he learned to write so we didn't have to try to figure out what his broken English even means.

I think he starts with a sarcastic idea and gets so lost in it he forgets to write any actual content around it to understand what he's even being sarcastic about

Essentially an effort to derail your thread.

Like forty pages ago that happened..

 

[Cecilie1200]

I've answered it probably 9 times now.

The fifth amendment. How can a "criminal justice" major POSSIBLY not know that?

There is NOTHING in the 5th Amendment that answers my question. The law about felons owning guns is a federal law, not included in the Constitution, and the law regarding felons being able to vote is deferred to the states.

I take it you can't read? I posted it.

You took Criminal Justice and you don't know what:

The fifth amendment.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

For god fucking sakes, what is wrong with you? How does a CRIMINAL JUSTICE major possibly have to repeatedly ask that?

Seriously, what is wrong with you? Have you had a stroke?

Yet cops and the judicial system abuse the 5th on asset forfeiture daily and you say not a word about it..

I have no idea if Kaz has ever said a word about asset forfeiture or not. And neither do you. And could this BE any more extraneous to the topic of this thread? Do you have something to say on the subject of school shootings at all?

I did sixty pages ago..

Amazingly enough, the topic of the thread hasn't changed since then, nor is it going to. If you don't have the attention span necessary for the long haul, may I suggest moving to another thread, or finding something to do that isn't disruptive to others?

 

[TemplarKormac]

You took Criminal Justice and you don't know what:

The fifth amendment.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

For god fucking sakes, what is wrong with you? How does a CRIMINAL JUSTICE major possibly have to repeatedly ask that?

Seriously, what is wrong with you? Have you had a stroke?

Yet cops and the judicial system abuse the 5th on asset forfeiture daily and you say not a word about it..

Because civil asset forfeiture has nothing to do with his argument, Moonie. Don't change the subject.

He's double stupid, he was wrong. I'm strongly against asset forfeiture and have said so.

He'd also look less stupid if he learned to write so we didn't have to try to figure out what his broken English even means.

I think he starts with a sarcastic idea and gets so lost in it he forgets to write any actual content around it to understand what he's even being sarcastic about

Essentially an effort to derail your thread.

Like forty pages ago that happened..

No, it didn't.

You know what, Moonie, go play in the FZ.

Gone, git!

 

[Cecilie1200]

Social Security is at least a program that requires MOST of the people who receive benefits from it to have put something into it in order to get them, so it is different from welfare in that regard

This is the part of your post that is factually wrong.

The money they paid in was spent as it was received, no money was ever saved.

Welfare: 100% of the amount paid is paid by current taxpayers

Social Security: 100% of the amount paid is paid by current taxpayers

You cannot refute that. It's a fact

I didn't say that wasn't the case. I said most of those who get Social Security have put something in, and they have, the fact that our incompetent government immediately spent it instead of putting it aside like they promised to notwithstanding.

If by "put something in" you don't mean that they ever saved any money, then I don't know what you're taying. You're very precise in your language, I usually do.

Social Security can be a hard one because you want to believe that somehow all the money you're paying into for it makes it somehow justified that they take your children's money and give it to you later, even if as in your case you'd prefer they do away with both.

1) Did I "put something in" when I pay income taxes? It works exactly the same way. They spend the money as it comes in. Why isn't that a savings plan?

2) How can anyone have "put something in" when not one dime of the money they will ever receive in social security checks was their own money? I will get a GE pension. Part of my wages were company contributions to my pension plan. That is saved and invested. Social Security is entirely different. You pay, they steal later from your children

3) Again,

1973 - income taxes, spent as they come in
1973 - social security taxes, spent as they come in

2018 - welfare check, all money comes from taxpayers
2018 - social security check, all money comes from taxpayers.

Two programs that work EXACTLY the same way. How can one be welfare and the other not?

Sure, politicians lied to you. That doesn't change the nature of what social security is.

Our parents gave us a tip. Psst, do the same to your kids. I don't want to do that. Regardless of the decades I've paid social security, I don't want to use that to justify stealing from my children

*sigh* Again, I am well aware that the government operates the Social Security Administration as a giant Ponzi scheme. I have already said that I don't approve of the entire concept. Nevertheless, the money that is taken from people while they work, even though it is used to pay those already on Social Security, DOES still constitute them putting something into the system.

It's not much of a "gotcha!" that both welfare and Social Security money all comes from taxpayers, because ALL money the government has comes from taxpayers. Not the point.

 

[Moonglow]

Social Security is at least a program that requires MOST of the people who receive benefits from it to have put something into it in order to get them, so it is different from welfare in that regard

This is the part of your post that is factually wrong.

The money they paid in was spent as it was received, no money was ever saved.

Welfare: 100% of the amount paid is paid by current taxpayers

Social Security: 100% of the amount paid is paid by current taxpayers

You cannot refute that. It's a fact

I didn't say that wasn't the case. I said most of those who get Social Security have put something in, and they have, the fact that our incompetent government immediately spent it instead of putting it aside like they promised to notwithstanding.

If by "put something in" you don't mean that they ever saved any money, then I don't know what you're taying. You're very precise in your language, I usually do.

Social Security can be a hard one because you want to believe that somehow all the money you're paying into for it makes it somehow justified that they take your children's money and give it to you later, even if as in your case you'd prefer they do away with both.

1) Did I "put something in" when I pay income taxes? It works exactly the same way. They spend the money as it comes in. Why isn't that a savings plan?

2) How can anyone have "put something in" when not one dime of the money they will ever receive in social security checks was their own money? I will get a GE pension. Part of my wages were company contributions to my pension plan. That is saved and invested. Social Security is entirely different. You pay, they steal later from your children

3) Again,

1973 - income taxes, spent as they come in
1973 - social security taxes, spent as they come in

2018 - welfare check, all money comes from taxpayers
2018 - social security check, all money comes from taxpayers.

Two programs that work EXACTLY the same way. How can one be welfare and the other not?

Sure, politicians lied to you. That doesn't change the nature of what social security is.

Our parents gave us a tip. Psst, do the same to your kids. I don't want to do that. Regardless of the decades I've paid social security, I don't want to use that to justify stealing from my children

*sigh* Again, I am well aware that the government operates the Social Security Administration as a giant Ponzi scheme. I have already said that I don't approve of the entire concept. Nevertheless, the money that is taken from people while they work, even though it is used to pay those already on Social Security, DOES still constitute them putting something into the system.

It's not much of a "gotcha!" that both welfare and Social Security money all comes from taxpayers, because ALL money the government has comes from taxpayers. Not the point.

And what does this have to do with a school shooting? Oh yeah you are just keeping cognitive thoughts flowing...Does the other old liberal need a crutch to understand?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I've answered it probably 9 times now.

The fifth amendment. How can a "criminal justice" major POSSIBLY not know that?

There is NOTHING in the 5th Amendment that answers my question. The law about felons owning guns is a federal law, not included in the Constitution, and the law regarding felons being able to vote is deferred to the states.

I take it you can't read? I posted it.

You took Criminal Justice and you don't know what:

The fifth amendment.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

For god fucking sakes, what is wrong with you? How does a CRIMINAL JUSTICE major possibly have to repeatedly ask that?

Seriously, what is wrong with you? Have you had a stroke?

Yet cops and the judicial system abuse the 5th on asset forfeiture daily and you say not a word about it..

I have no idea if Kaz has ever said a word about asset forfeiture or not. And neither do you. And could this BE any more extraneous to the topic of this thread? Do you have something to say on the subject of school shootings at all?

Thanks. I'm strongly against asset forfeiture. And I've said so. I gave moon bat a couple quotes, you may have seen them already.

He's a liar. Making things up is lying. And in this case, he could have looked less stupid by just typing "asset forfeiture" and "kaz" into the search feature

I probably ignored them, since asset forfeiture isn't particularly relevant to anything I'm talking about, but it doesn't knock me off my chair to think that Moon is lying.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Social Security is at least a program that requires MOST of the people who receive benefits from it to have put something into it in order to get them, so it is different from welfare in that regard

This is the part of your post that is factually wrong.

The money they paid in was spent as it was received, no money was ever saved.

Welfare: 100% of the amount paid is paid by current taxpayers

Social Security: 100% of the amount paid is paid by current taxpayers

You cannot refute that. It's a fact

I didn't say that wasn't the case. I said most of those who get Social Security have put something in, and they have, the fact that our incompetent government immediately spent it instead of putting it aside like they promised to notwithstanding.

If by "put something in" you don't mean that they ever saved any money, then I don't know what you're taying. You're very precise in your language, I usually do.

Social Security can be a hard one because you want to believe that somehow all the money you're paying into for it makes it somehow justified that they take your children's money and give it to you later, even if as in your case you'd prefer they do away with both.

1) Did I "put something in" when I pay income taxes? It works exactly the same way. They spend the money as it comes in. Why isn't that a savings plan?

2) How can anyone have "put something in" when not one dime of the money they will ever receive in social security checks was their own money? I will get a GE pension. Part of my wages were company contributions to my pension plan. That is saved and invested. Social Security is entirely different. You pay, they steal later from your children

3) Again,

1973 - income taxes, spent as they come in
1973 - social security taxes, spent as they come in

2018 - welfare check, all money comes from taxpayers
2018 - social security check, all money comes from taxpayers.

Two programs that work EXACTLY the same way. How can one be welfare and the other not?

Sure, politicians lied to you. That doesn't change the nature of what social security is.

Our parents gave us a tip. Psst, do the same to your kids. I don't want to do that. Regardless of the decades I've paid social security, I don't want to use that to justify stealing from my children

*sigh* Again, I am well aware that the government operates the Social Security Administration as a giant Ponzi scheme. I have already said that I don't approve of the entire concept. Nevertheless, the money that is taken from people while they work, even though it is used to pay those already on Social Security, DOES still constitute them putting something into the system.

It's not much of a "gotcha!" that both welfare and Social Security money all comes from taxpayers, because ALL money the government has comes from taxpayers. Not the point.

And what does this have to do with a school shooting? Oh yeah you are just keeping cognitive thoughts flowing...Does the other old liberal need a crutch to understand?

If you'd bothered to read the thread before opening your flapping gob, you would know the answer to this question.

 

[kaz]

There is NOTHING in the 5th Amendment that answers my question. The law about felons owning guns is a federal law, not included in the Constitution, and the law regarding felons being able to vote is deferred to the states.

I take it you can't read? I posted it.

You took Criminal Justice and you don't know what:

The fifth amendment.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

For god fucking sakes, what is wrong with you? How does a CRIMINAL JUSTICE major possibly have to repeatedly ask that?

Seriously, what is wrong with you? Have you had a stroke?

Yet cops and the judicial system abuse the 5th on asset forfeiture daily and you say not a word about it..

I have no idea if Kaz has ever said a word about asset forfeiture or not. And neither do you. And could this BE any more extraneous to the topic of this thread? Do you have something to say on the subject of school shootings at all?

I did sixty pages ago..

Amazingly enough, the topic of the thread hasn't changed since then, nor is it going to. If you don't have the attention span necessary for the long haul, may I suggest moving to another thread, or finding something to do that isn't disruptive to others?

Great point, but in Moonglow's defense, he doesn't have the attention span to write one coherent sentence on a consistent basis. As I mentioned, I had to have him explain TWICE what one of his particularly bizarre sentences said, and still had to guess. Though by that time I had enough clues to guess correctly

 

[Cecilie1200]

You took Criminal Justice and you don't know what:

The fifth amendment.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

For god fucking sakes, what is wrong with you? How does a CRIMINAL JUSTICE major possibly have to repeatedly ask that?

Seriously, what is wrong with you? Have you had a stroke?

Yet cops and the judicial system abuse the 5th on asset forfeiture daily and you say not a word about it..

I have no idea if Kaz has ever said a word about asset forfeiture or not. And neither do you. And could this BE any more extraneous to the topic of this thread? Do you have something to say on the subject of school shootings at all?

I did sixty pages ago..

Amazingly enough, the topic of the thread hasn't changed since then, nor is it going to. If you don't have the attention span necessary for the long haul, may I suggest moving to another thread, or finding something to do that isn't disruptive to others?

Great point, but in Moonglow's defense, he doesn't have the attention span to write one coherent sentence on a consistent basis. As I mentioned, I had to have him explain TWICE what one of his particularly bizarre sentences said, and still had to guess. Though by that time I had enough clues to guess correctly

In my defense, his deficiencies are not my problem, and I don't care.

 

[kaz]

Social Security is at least a program that requires MOST of the people who receive benefits from it to have put something into it in order to get them, so it is different from welfare in that regard

This is the part of your post that is factually wrong.

The money they paid in was spent as it was received, no money was ever saved.

Welfare: 100% of the amount paid is paid by current taxpayers

Social Security: 100% of the amount paid is paid by current taxpayers

You cannot refute that. It's a fact

I didn't say that wasn't the case. I said most of those who get Social Security have put something in, and they have, the fact that our incompetent government immediately spent it instead of putting it aside like they promised to notwithstanding.

If by "put something in" you don't mean that they ever saved any money, then I don't know what you're taying. You're very precise in your language, I usually do.

Social Security can be a hard one because you want to believe that somehow all the money you're paying into for it makes it somehow justified that they take your children's money and give it to you later, even if as in your case you'd prefer they do away with both.

1) Did I "put something in" when I pay income taxes? It works exactly the same way. They spend the money as it comes in. Why isn't that a savings plan?

2) How can anyone have "put something in" when not one dime of the money they will ever receive in social security checks was their own money? I will get a GE pension. Part of my wages were company contributions to my pension plan. That is saved and invested. Social Security is entirely different. You pay, they steal later from your children

3) Again,

1973 - income taxes, spent as they come in
1973 - social security taxes, spent as they come in

2018 - welfare check, all money comes from taxpayers
2018 - social security check, all money comes from taxpayers.

Two programs that work EXACTLY the same way. How can one be welfare and the other not?

Sure, politicians lied to you. That doesn't change the nature of what social security is.

Our parents gave us a tip. Psst, do the same to your kids. I don't want to do that. Regardless of the decades I've paid social security, I don't want to use that to justify stealing from my children

*sigh* Again, I am well aware that the government operates the Social Security Administration as a giant Ponzi scheme. I have already said that I don't approve of the entire concept. Nevertheless, the money that is taken from people while they work, even though it is used to pay those already on Social Security, DOES still constitute them putting something into the system.

It's not much of a "gotcha!" that both welfare and Social Security money all comes from taxpayers, because ALL money the government has comes from taxpayers. Not the point.

Then why isn't the military a savings plan? Why does money you pay for social security count as "paying in" and military expenditures don't? Should I get a check every month because I paid for the military in 1993?

I know we mostly agree. But I see no possible way to use the term "paid into" for money that was spent like every other tax we paid.

I'll drop it. You're obviously a precise, well spoken and thoughtful person. Noodle it some more and when you're ready, you'll realize what I did. It wasn't easy for me to accept what it really is either, I'm not saying otherwise. But we need to stop listening to all the verbiage (lies) around all our government programs and call them out for what they actually are.

You and I paid into nothing, there was nothing to pay into. Government redistributed our money to our parents, they will redistribute our children's money to us, exactly like every other welfare program

 

[kaz]

Social Security is at least a program that requires MOST of the people who receive benefits from it to have put something into it in order to get them, so it is different from welfare in that regard

This is the part of your post that is factually wrong.

The money they paid in was spent as it was received, no money was ever saved.

Welfare: 100% of the amount paid is paid by current taxpayers

Social Security: 100% of the amount paid is paid by current taxpayers

You cannot refute that. It's a fact

I didn't say that wasn't the case. I said most of those who get Social Security have put something in, and they have, the fact that our incompetent government immediately spent it instead of putting it aside like they promised to notwithstanding.

If by "put something in" you don't mean that they ever saved any money, then I don't know what you're taying. You're very precise in your language, I usually do.

Social Security can be a hard one because you want to believe that somehow all the money you're paying into for it makes it somehow justified that they take your children's money and give it to you later, even if as in your case you'd prefer they do away with both.

1) Did I "put something in" when I pay income taxes? It works exactly the same way. They spend the money as it comes in. Why isn't that a savings plan?

2) How can anyone have "put something in" when not one dime of the money they will ever receive in social security checks was their own money? I will get a GE pension. Part of my wages were company contributions to my pension plan. That is saved and invested. Social Security is entirely different. You pay, they steal later from your children

3) Again,

1973 - income taxes, spent as they come in
1973 - social security taxes, spent as they come in

2018 - welfare check, all money comes from taxpayers
2018 - social security check, all money comes from taxpayers.

Two programs that work EXACTLY the same way. How can one be welfare and the other not?

Sure, politicians lied to you. That doesn't change the nature of what social security is.

Our parents gave us a tip. Psst, do the same to your kids. I don't want to do that. Regardless of the decades I've paid social security, I don't want to use that to justify stealing from my children

*sigh* Again, I am well aware that the government operates the Social Security Administration as a giant Ponzi scheme. I have already said that I don't approve of the entire concept. Nevertheless, the money that is taken from people while they work, even though it is used to pay those already on Social Security, DOES still constitute them putting something into the system.

It's not much of a "gotcha!" that both welfare and Social Security money all comes from taxpayers, because ALL money the government has comes from taxpayers. Not the point.

And what does this have to do with a school shooting? Oh yeah you are just keeping cognitive thoughts flowing...Does the other old liberal need a crutch to understand?

No, I think I understood what you said that time. Thank you for acknowledging that between us, I am the liberal. You're not liberal, you're a leftist. There is nothing liberal about leftists. You're rigidly intolerant