Cuz Merica

[paradime]

Republicans may have lost a seat, but they dodged a bullet. 

[paradime]

I respect him and trust him as far as I can throw him! And I don't have to learn anything, I have the same rights, good or bad and that is that. 

OK

[tr8er]

Dems are being hilarious calling this election the turning point of Trumps support...

[racerx]

The last thing the dems want to do is get to cocky. Gop still controls both isle and of course there's Trumpcheeto.

[paradime]

Dems are being hilarious calling this election the turning point of Trumps support...

 

I'm sure it feels that way to Dems, but they've lost all insight on how this country thinks and feels. It's like the entire party has become one big clueless Michael Dukakis. Had it not been for Moore, Jones would have never won Sessions' seat. Had there not been so much riding on this, Moore would be a Senator and he'd fit right in. 

[MikeRL411]

Is there actually any food in those carts???

 

Calories? Yes.  Nutrition, no!  Trying out for a cable TV weight loss program from Texas?  I doubt it.  They're just happy to squeeze through the extra wide doors.

[john510]

Wrong:

1985: Mayor Dianne Feinstein signed legislation designating San Francisco as a sanctuary city for immigrants seeking asylum from El Salvador and Guatemala.

 

Brown is a cook, but conservatives have to learn to respect liberal state's rights too. 

Wrong ? you just said what i said.What country the immigrant comes from is irrelevant.What are "liberal states rights" ? is it the right to pass any ordinance you want to even if it undermines laws already set in place ? that sounds about right.

[a.d._510_n_ok]

Brown is a cook, but conservatives have to learn to respect liberal state's rights too.

Sure. Whatever.

 

Five questions about federal challenge to Arizona immigration law

July 7, 2010 2:12 p.m. EDT

 

Q: What's the Obama administration's argument against the Arizona immigration law?

 

"In our constitutional system, the power to regulate immigration is exclusively vested in the federal government," the Justice Department brief said. "The immigration framework set forth by Congress and administered by federal agencies reflects a careful and considered balance of national law enforcement, foreign relations, and humanitarian concerns -- concerns that belong to the nation as a whole, not a single state."

 

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/07/07/immigration.faq/index.html

[datzenmike]

Time for my morning shit. Ahhh.... Moore lost. I have a new respect for those Red Tide people who voted against him and nothing but distain for those who followed this false prophet. Once again, good triumphs over evil. Perhaps there is a god and he doesn't like bible thumpers and pedophiles...... pass the paper. 

 

 

"God is beyond measure in wanton malice and matchless in his irony."

[racerx]

Moore, the self righteous, pos. Then his wife gets on the mic and says we have a lawyer that's a Jew..wtf, that's supposed to convinced people?

[datzenmike]

Wow just saying that is racist not to mention promoting a stereotype.

 

Did I see right? that only about 25% of voters showed up to vote????? 

[tr8er]

Closer to 40 from what I read

[racerx]

Supposedly, afro Americans came out in droves and last minute sign in.

[a.d._510_n_ok]

Sen. Chuck Schumer alerts police to alleged plot to smear him with sexual harassment claim

 

Sen. Chuck Schumer’s office says the Senate Democratic Leader was the target of an attempted smear campaign in which someone forged a sexual harassment claim against him and shopped phony court documents to major media outlets.

 

Schumer’s office told ABC News that it has filed a report with the Capitol Police.

 

The 13-page document, which ABC had obtained from sources, resembles a legal complaint filed by a former Schumer staffer in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. It appears to detail alleged incidents of sexual harassment directed at one of his female staffers on Capitol Hill.

 

During a phone conversation, the former staffer said flatly that she never experienced any misconduct during her time on Schumer’s staff and never filed a complaint with the Hill’s Office of Compliance.

 

“The claims in this document are completely false, my signature is forged and even basic facts about me are wrong,” the former staffer listed as the plaintiff in the document told ABC News in a statement.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sen-chuck-schumer-alerts-police-alleged-plot-smear/story?id=51760584

[q-tip]

Remember it was Alabama, the state that is in a constant battle with Mississippi for the dumbest state in the union....

[paradime]

Wrong ? you just said what i said.What country the immigrant comes from is irrelevant.What are "liberal states rights" ? is it the right to pass any ordinance you want to even if it undermines laws already set in place ? that sounds about right.

 

Oh, so siting the 1989 law you were referring to registered "immigrants seeking asylum" and not any illegal immigrant seeking a job like San Francisco's new definition of sanctuary city. Right...  :rofl:

 

With respect to local authorities not enforcing the provisions of a federal law, why is it okay for GUN RIGHTS advocates to use it? In Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 117 S.Ct. 2365, 138 L.Ed.2d 914(U.S. 1997), a sheriff sought to enjoin provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. Pub.L. 103-159, 107 Stat. 1536. The act established a system of national instant background checks. Local authorities were required to participate in the system by performing background checks on behalf of the federal government. The Supreme Court ruled that Congress had no authority to enlist local authorities to enforce the provisions of a federal law.

 

With regards to States' Rights, it's a central position on the conservative viewpoint of government. Appealing to the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, the argument being the government closest to the people is best able to decide. Rights guaranteed to the states under the principle of federalism. Under the Constitution, states have considerable autonomy to pass, enforce, and interpret their own laws and to pursue their own public policy programs. Proponents of states' rights argue that the states should be governed with a minimum of interference from the federal government. The 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was designed to prevent the federal government to run amok, claiming powers the people do not wish it to have. Personally I totally agree with this position.

 

With respect to sanctuary cities, and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act though, in these cases the conservative position has been to override states' rights in favor of federal law enforcement over states laws. This is my point in saying "conservatives have to learn to respect liberal state's rights too."

 

 

Sure. Whatever.

 

Five questions about federal challenge to Arizona immigration law

July 7, 2010 2:12 p.m. EDT

 

 

. Check out the 4th Amendment regarding American citizen's right to be secure in their person, and Necessary and Proper Clause.

 

BTW, Why are you quoting fake news?

[Rjawm]

 

 but conservatives have to learn to respect liberal state's rights too. 

 

This is an extreme fallacy.  You make this statement as if the opposite would already be true.

 

Applying that same logic to a conservative majority state, and it's "rights" as the argument, would never be an acceptable point for any liberal living in said state.  They would still expect their "rights" to be observed. 

 

Oh, wait, I get it, in our country liberals views are more important than conservative views so therefore the conservative view must be quashed in entirety.

[Rjawm]

Supposedly, afro Americans came out in droves and last minute sign in.

 

 

 That's racist.

 

It should be said that last minute voters came out in droves.

 

I mean if the liberals want to claim a victory, their rules of speech should be followed.

[Rjawm]

[dhp123166]

[dhp123166]

[a.d._510_n_ok]

Kate Steinle’s death was completely avoidable — end sanctuary policies

 

Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, an illegal alien who had been released from custody under San Francisco’s sanctuary policy, fatally wounded Steinle and was charged with her murder. Today he walks free — a jury acquitted him Nov. 30.

 

One might have expected after Steinle’s avoidable death that local officials would reconsider their refusal to cooperate with federal immigration authorities.

 

One would be half right. San Francisco did reconsider its sanctuary policy. But rather than take reasonable steps to ensure that criminal aliens are not returned to the community, local officials doubled down on their adamant refusal to turn over most deportable criminals to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

 

As an elected law enforcement officer, sworn to protect the security of the people of Jackson County, Texas, it boggles my mind that other elected city and county officials responsible for the safety of their citizens would take such a glaring example of a broken system and decide to ignore it. And it gets worse, because not only does San Francisco remain a sanctuary city but California has formally declared itself a sanctuary state.

 

The political pandering on immigration is not limited to California. Driven by a radical political fringe, sweeping sanctuary policies — specifically designed to protect criminal aliens — have proliferated. Illinois, Connecticut and Colorado are just some of the states that have seen sanctuary policies explode since Steinle’s death in 2015.

 

http://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/364653-kate-steinles-death-was-completely-avoidable-end-sanctuary-policies

[paradime]

This is an extreme fallacy.  You make this statement as if the opposite would already be true.

 

Applying that same logic to a conservative majority state, and it's "rights" as the argument, would never be an acceptable point for any liberal living in said state.  They would still expect their "rights" to be observed. 

 

Oh, wait, I get it, in our country liberals views are more important than conservative views so therefore the conservative view must be quashed in entirety.

 

What you fail to grasp is the means of the word "too". You take my words out of context and project into it what you want to believe. Obviously you assume I'm a liberal judging conservatives, but if you actually read the conversation between me and John, you'd know I don't support the concept or intent of sanctuary city, and I totally support states in deciding what's best for them. These were conservative viewpoints last I checked.

 

My point is I'm sick of both sides flip flopping back and forth in their interpretation of the 10th amendment to promote or condemn states laws as it serves them. You either respect the right of states to decide for themselves or you don't. If you don't like what your governor is doing, vote for someone you agree with. If you don't like what another state is doing, you don't have to live there so deal with it.

[john510]

Oh, so siting the 1989 law you were referring to registered "immigrants seeking asylum" and not any illegal immigrant seeking a job like San Francisco's new definition of sanctuary city. Right...  :rofl:

 

With respect to local authorities not enforcing the provisions of a federal law, why is it okay for GUN RIGHTS advocates to use it? In Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 117 S.Ct. 2365, 138 L.Ed.2d 914(U.S. 1997), a sheriff sought to enjoin provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. Pub.L. 103-159, 107 Stat. 1536. The act established a system of national instant background checks. Local authorities were required to participate in the system by performing background checks on behalf of the federal government. The Supreme Court ruled that Congress had no authority to enlist local authorities to enforce the provisions of a federal law.

 

With regards to States' Rights, it's a central position on the conservative viewpoint of government. Appealing to the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, the argument being the government closest to the people is best able to decide. Rights guaranteed to the states under the principle of federalism. Under the Constitution, states have considerable autonomy to pass, enforce, and interpret their own laws and to pursue their own public policy programs. Proponents of states' rights argue that the states should be governed with a minimum of interference from the federal government. The 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was designed to prevent the federal government to run amok, claiming powers the people do not wish it to have. Personally I totally agree with this position.

 

With respect to sanctuary cities, and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act though, in these cases the conservative position has been to override states' rights in favor of federal law enforcement over states laws. This is my point in saying "conservatives have to learn to respect liberal state's rights too."

 

 

 

 

. Check out the 4th Amendment regarding American citizen's right to be secure in their person, and Necessary and Proper Clause.

 

BTW, Why are you quoting fake news?

You were the one that claimed Jerry Brown made San Francisco a sanctuary city in 2016.It already was ! 

[Rjawm]

What you fail to grasp is the means of the word "too". You take my words out of context and project into it what you want to believe. Obviously you assume I'm a liberal judging conservatives, but if you actually read the conversation between me and John, you'd know I don't support the concept or intent of sanctuary city, and I totally support states in deciding what's best for them. These were conservative viewpoints last I checked.

 

My point is I'm sick of both sides flip flopping back and forth in their interpretation of the 10th amendment to promote or condemn states laws as it serves them. You either respect the right of states to decide for themselves or you don't. If you don't like what your governor is doing, vote for someone you agree with. If you don't like what another state is doing, you don't have to live there so deal with it.

 

It's funny to me how every time I interject in this thread, it's immediately thrown out that I've out of context quoted or haven't read the conversations.  Just because I don't post on the regular in here doesn't mean I don't check in, without logging in, to read damn near every post.

 

It's also odd how I'm told I assumed someone's stance on the regular.  None of my statements are from a "side", I protect no one candidate or political party.  My posts have been observance of statements made in here without any added meaning on my part.

 

I didn't read jack shit out of context, I read it and the intent of the statement was to say If they don't do it, why should we, which is as I said, is a fallacy. 

 

The last bit of the post, that should have been easily spotted to be sarcasm and not a pointed comment...which you assumed it was.