I'm sure they signed some kind of mutual aid agreement.captquint wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 5:47 pmWhere does it say states must enforce federal law?Antknot wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 5:46 pmHow about not enforcing federal laws? And ignoring requests from federal agencies?
Aw Hell Gillette- Naw you din'it
Moderator: Biker
-
- Not UJR's Military Attaché
- Posts: 6782
- Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 11:30 pm
- Location: South Carolina
Re: Aw Hell Gillette- Naw you din'it
- CaptQuint
- Biker's Biatch
- Posts: 30361
- Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:18 pm
Re: Aw Hell Gillette- Naw you din'it
Oh? Are you sure? So you have something to back that up?Antknot wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 7:13 pmI'm sure they signed some kind of mutual aid agreement.captquint wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 5:47 pmWhere does it say states must enforce federal law?
Any damn fool can navigate the world sober. It takes a really good sailor to do it drunk
- AnalHamster
- Doctor Chaser
- Posts: 6471
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm
Re: Aw Hell Gillette- Naw you din'it
You can't change the constitution with a contract.Antknot wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 7:13 pmI'm sure they signed some kind of mutual aid agreement.captquint wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 5:47 pmWhere does it say states must enforce federal law?
-
- Not UJR's Military Attaché
- Posts: 6782
- Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 11:30 pm
- Location: South Carolina
Re: Aw Hell Gillette- Naw you din'it
Prove me wrong. I dare ya.captquint wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 7:14 pmOh? Are you sure? So you have something to back that up?Antknot wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 7:13 pmI'm sure they signed some kind of mutual aid agreement.
- CaptQuint
- Biker's Biatch
- Posts: 30361
- Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:18 pm
Re: Aw Hell Gillette- Naw you din'it
You're so sure and you're making the claim. Put up or shut upAntknot wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 7:28 pmProve me wrong. I dare ya.
Any damn fool can navigate the world sober. It takes a really good sailor to do it drunk
- AnalHamster
- Doctor Chaser
- Posts: 6471
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm
Re: Aw Hell Gillette- Naw you din'it
I already did, which part couldn't you understand?Antknot wrote: Prove me wrong. I dare ya.
-
- Not UJR's Military Attaché
- Posts: 6782
- Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 11:30 pm
- Location: South Carolina
Re: Aw Hell Gillette- Naw you din'it
Well, since you weren't in the quote chain whose nic did you use? Or is this more of your bias showing?analhamster wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 7:41 pmI already did, which part couldn't you understand?Antknot wrote: Prove me wrong. I dare ya.
- AnalHamster
- Doctor Chaser
- Posts: 6471
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm
Re: Aw Hell Gillette- Naw you din'it
I'm not following, you think me posting clear evidence your contention was wrong doesn't count because you want CQ to post it instead? Or you missed it because you're not reading my posts despite responding to this one? Doesn't make much sense either way, do feel free to explain yourself.Antknot wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 7:54 pmWell, since you weren't in the quote chain whose nic did you use? Or is this more of your bias showing?analhamster wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 7:41 pmI already did, which part couldn't you understand?Antknot wrote: Prove me wrong. I dare ya.
-
- Not UJR's Military Attaché
- Posts: 6782
- Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 11:30 pm
- Location: South Carolina
Re: Aw Hell Gillette- Naw you din'it
Saw no posting from you in the thread chain. So don't know what you said.analhamster wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 8:01 pmI'm not following, you think me posting clear evidence your contention was wrong doesn't count because you want CQ to post it instead? Or you missed it because you're not reading my posts despite responding to this one? Doesn't make much sense either way, do feel free to explain yourself.Antknot wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 7:54 pmWell, since you weren't in the quote chain whose nic did you use? Or is this more of your bias showing?analhamster wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 7:41 pmI already did, which part couldn't you understand?Antknot wrote: Prove me wrong. I dare ya.
- AnalHamster
- Doctor Chaser
- Posts: 6471
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm
Re: Aw Hell Gillette- Naw you din'it
Uh huh, so your claim is that despite reading and responding to my post, before that you couldn't see my posts. Very convincing.Antknot wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 8:20 pmSaw no posting from you in the thread chain. So don't know what you said.analhamster wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 8:01 pmI'm not following, you think me posting clear evidence your contention was wrong doesn't count because you want CQ to post it instead? Or you missed it because you're not reading my posts despite responding to this one? Doesn't make much sense either way, do feel free to explain yourself.Antknot wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 7:54 pmWell, since you weren't in the quote chain whose nic did you use? Or is this more of your bias showing?analhamster wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 7:41 pmI already did, which part couldn't you understand?Antknot wrote: Prove me wrong. I dare ya.
Your contention that states have to enforce federal laws with state agents is wrong. They don't. I cited the relevant SC court case for you, though fundamentally what we're talking about is the US Constitution which you haven't quite grasped.
Scalia, Printz v US, 5-4 conservative ruling wrote:The federal government may neither issue directives requiring the states to address particular problems, nor command the states’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case-by-case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.
The first one looked at whether state authorities can be compelled by the fed, answer no. The second one looked at whether the fed can do it by the backdoor by withholding funding, answer no.Roberts, NFIB v Sebelius, 7-2 ruling wrote:The Constitution has never been understood to confer upon Congress the ability to require the States to govern according to Congress’ instructions. Otherwise the two-government system established by the Framers would give way to a system that vests power in one central government, and individual liberty would suffer.
-
- Not UJR's Military Attaché
- Posts: 6782
- Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 11:30 pm
- Location: South Carolina
Re: Aw Hell Gillette- Naw you din'it
I went back and saw the "you can't change...with a contract." post. Never responded to it.analhamster wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 8:26 pmUh huh, so your claim is that despite reading and responding to my post, before that you couldn't see my posts. Very convincing.Antknot wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 8:20 pmSaw no posting from you in the thread chain. So don't know what you said.analhamster wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 8:01 pmI'm not following, you think me posting clear evidence your contention was wrong doesn't count because you want CQ to post it instead? Or you missed it because you're not reading my posts despite responding to this one? Doesn't make much sense either way, do feel free to explain yourself.Antknot wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 7:54 pmWell, since you weren't in the quote chain whose nic did you use? Or is this more of your bias showing?analhamster wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 7:41 pmI already did, which part couldn't you understand?Antknot wrote: Prove me wrong. I dare ya.
Your contention that states have to enforce federal laws with state agents is wrong. They don't. I cited the relevant SC court case for you, though fundamentally what we're talking about is the US Constitution which you haven't quite grasped.
But to respond to it now.
A contract can't eliminate the need to follow the law.
A contract can add conditions above the requirements of the law.
- AnalHamster
- Doctor Chaser
- Posts: 6471
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm
Re: Aw Hell Gillette- Naw you din'it
A contract cannot change the constitution. Very simple point, I suspect you know you can't argue otherwise. Compelling state agents to obey the fed rather than the state, or compelling the state to use its agents to enforce fed policy is a violation of the constitution, I have already twice shown you the proof of that statement, thus proving you wrong with your contention that states were compelled to do just that. Man up.Antknot wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 8:46 pmI went back and saw the "you can't change...with a contract." post. Never responded to it.analhamster wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 8:26 pmUh huh, so your claim is that despite reading and responding to my post, before that you couldn't see my posts. Very convincing.Antknot wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 8:20 pmSaw no posting from you in the thread chain. So don't know what you said.analhamster wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 8:01 pmI'm not following, you think me posting clear evidence your contention was wrong doesn't count because you want CQ to post it instead? Or you missed it because you're not reading my posts despite responding to this one? Doesn't make much sense either way, do feel free to explain yourself.
Your contention that states have to enforce federal laws with state agents is wrong. They don't. I cited the relevant SC court case for you, though fundamentally what we're talking about is the US Constitution which you haven't quite grasped.
But to respond to it now.
A contract can't eliminate the need to follow the law.
A contract can add conditions above the requirements of the law.
-
- Not UJR's Military Attaché
- Posts: 6782
- Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 11:30 pm
- Location: South Carolina
Re: Aw Hell Gillette- Naw you din'it
Never claimed a change to constitution.analhamster wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 8:50 pmA contract cannot change the constitution. Very simple point, I suspect you know you can't argue otherwise. Compelling state agents to obey the fed rather than the state, or compelling the state to use its agents to enforce fed policy is a violation of the constitution, I have already twice shown you the proof of that statement, thus proving you wrong with your contention that states were compelled to do just that. Man up.Antknot wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 8:46 pmI went back and saw the "you can't change...with a contract." post. Never responded to it.analhamster wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 8:26 pmUh huh, so your claim is that despite reading and responding to my post, before that you couldn't see my posts. Very convincing.Antknot wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 8:20 pmSaw no posting from you in the thread chain. So don't know what you said.analhamster wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 8:01 pmI'm not following, you think me posting clear evidence your contention was wrong doesn't count because you want CQ to post it instead? Or you missed it because you're not reading my posts despite responding to this one? Doesn't make much sense either way, do feel free to explain yourself.
Your contention that states have to enforce federal laws with state agents is wrong. They don't. I cited the relevant SC court case for you, though fundamentally what we're talking about is the US Constitution which you haven't quite grasped.
But to respond to it now.
A contract can't eliminate the need to follow the law.
A contract can add conditions above the requirements of the law.
I did say: A contract can add conditions above the requirements of the law.
Obvious, yes?
I also mentioned in an earlier post mutual aid agreements.
You do know of them?
Are you trying to tell me none of the agreements had a requirement placed on the state or a state agency?
Yes those two particular rulings exist they are about specific instances. They did not rule out penalties as part of a mutual aid agreement.
Do Federal agencies place requirements that the states pay for? You betcha.
Do Federal agencies withhold funds if a state isn't following guidelines? You betcha.
A request from ICE, ignored because a mayor or governor ordered it. (Sanctuary cities) Makes me wonder what the Fed's through ICE have provided the city and / or state. Information? Training? Equipment? Funds?
- AnalHamster
- Doctor Chaser
- Posts: 6471
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm
Re: Aw Hell Gillette- Naw you din'it
A contract cannot change the constitution.Antknot wrote: ↑Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:13 amNever claimed a change to constitution.analhamster wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 8:50 pmA contract cannot change the constitution. Very simple point, I suspect you know you can't argue otherwise. Compelling state agents to obey the fed rather than the state, or compelling the state to use its agents to enforce fed policy is a violation of the constitution, I have already twice shown you the proof of that statement, thus proving you wrong with your contention that states were compelled to do just that. Man up.Antknot wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 8:46 pmI went back and saw the "you can't change...with a contract." post. Never responded to it.analhamster wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 8:26 pmUh huh, so your claim is that despite reading and responding to my post, before that you couldn't see my posts. Very convincing.Antknot wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 8:20 pmSaw no posting from you in the thread chain. So don't know what you said.analhamster wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 8:01 pm I'm not following, you think me posting clear evidence your contention was wrong doesn't count because you want CQ to post it instead? Or you missed it because you're not reading my posts despite responding to this one? Doesn't make much sense either way, do feel free to explain yourself.
Your contention that states have to enforce federal laws with state agents is wrong. They don't. I cited the relevant SC court case for you, though fundamentally what we're talking about is the US Constitution which you haven't quite grasped.
But to respond to it now.
A contract can't eliminate the need to follow the law.
A contract can add conditions above the requirements of the law.
I did say: A contract can add conditions above the requirements of the law.
Obvious, yes?
I also mentioned in an earlier post mutual aid agreements.
You do know of them?
Are you trying to tell me none of the agreements had a requirement placed on the state or a state agency?
Yes those two particular rulings exist they are about specific instances. They did not rule out penalties as part of a mutual aid agreement.
Do Federal agencies place requirements that the states pay for? You betcha.
Do Federal agencies withhold funds if a state isn't following guidelines? You betcha.
A request from ICE, ignored because a mayor or governor ordered it. (Sanctuary cities) Makes me wonder what the Fed's through ICE have provided the city and / or state. Information? Training? Equipment? Funds?
Under the constitution a state cannot be forced to carry out law enforcement of federal laws. That's a fundamental principle not a 'specific instance'.
Are you able to comprehend these two simple points? This is why your contention was wrong, it's pretty simple. Sanctuary cities can refuse to enforce federal laws because that is their constitutional right, upheld repeatedly by conservative courts with a grand total of zero contrary rulings. There is no 'mutual aid agreement', you pulled that from your ass and now you declare broad precedents which I quoted for you are really just 'specific instances' you can ignore because they don't fit your incorrect starting conclusion. If a state voluntarily entered into some kind of contract where it agreed to enforce immigration laws none of what we are discussing would be at all relevant because each state is free to choose to do that, or not do that. That's the whole point. The fed simply can't force the state to do it. It cannot coerce a state to do it either, again something tested in the courts. If there is some ICE program specifically and exclusively aimed at rounding up illegals, funding for that and that alone could be withheld from a state that did not want to do it. Funding for unrelated things could not. What part of that can't you grasp?
- DandyDon
- Redneck Commie
- Posts: 2008
- Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 8:05 pm
Re: Aw Hell Gillette- Naw you din'it
I'll just leave this here. That little Tucker Carlson wannabe cunt needs to be pimp slapped so hard he cant taste jalapenos for a month.
https://ktla.com/2019/01/19/diocese-in- ... ton-rally/
Damn, Leroy'd.
https://ktla.com/2019/01/19/diocese-in- ... ton-rally/
Damn, Leroy'd.
- VinceBordenIII
- Loves swimmin' with bowlegged women!
- Posts: 3075
- Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:03 pm
Re: Aw Hell Gillette- Naw you din'it
I just read about this this morning, after reading lots of venom last night on twitter about what should be done to this kid. A letter to their local news says that the actual story is not what’s being presented by the media. In fact, not 15 minutes after, I saw our own local news condemning this kid.DandyDon wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:21 am I'll just leave this here. That little Tucker Carlson wannabe cunt needs to be pimp slapped so hard he cant taste jalapenos for a month.
https://ktla.com/2019/01/19/diocese-in- ... ton-rally/
Damn, Leroy'd.
But there’s more video out there. The story may continue to change, but, as I understand it,the kid was picked out of the group as others around him separated. He/they didn’t mock this NA guy, and he didn’t realize he was in a “confrontation.”
Seeing lots of adults calling for his doxxing, expulsion, etc., without even waiting to find out the truth.
- VinceBordenIII
- Loves swimmin' with bowlegged women!
- Posts: 3075
- Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:03 pm
Re: Aw Hell Gillette- Naw you din'it
As far as the Gillette commercial goes, it was a marketing ploy, period. The one who made the vid has her own agenda, but the company has theirs. Gillette calculated that the buzz generated would be a net positive over the negative fallout. Only time will tell.
I’m not buying their overpriced products anymore, but I’m not throwing out my razors, either.
I’m not buying their overpriced products anymore, but I’m not throwing out my razors, either.
- AnalHamster
- Doctor Chaser
- Posts: 6471
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm
Re: Aw Hell Gillette- Naw you din'it
There is video of kids mocking the native american singing. The kid being focused on is standing right in his face smirking at him, it is inherently confrontational.VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 3:16 pmI just read about this this morning, after reading lots of venom last night on twitter about what should be done to this kid. A letter to their local news says that the actual story is not what’s being presented by the media. In fact, not 15 minutes after, I saw our own local news condemning this kid.DandyDon wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:21 am I'll just leave this here. That little Tucker Carlson wannabe cunt needs to be pimp slapped so hard he cant taste jalapenos for a month.
https://ktla.com/2019/01/19/diocese-in- ... ton-rally/
Damn, Leroy'd.
But there’s more video out there. The story may continue to change, but, as I understand it,the kid was picked out of the group as others around him separated. He/they didn’t mock this NA guy, and he didn’t realize he was in a “confrontation.”
Seeing lots of adults calling for his doxxing, expulsion, etc., without even waiting to find out the truth.
- Stapes
- World's Only Blue Collar Guy
- Posts: 12853
- Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:50 pm
- Location: Port St Lucie former Dirty Jerzey
Re: Aw Hell Gillette- Naw you din'it
VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 3:16 pmI just read about this this morning, after reading lots of venom last night on twitter about what should be done to this kid. A letter to their local news says that the actual story is not what’s being presented by the media. In fact, not 15 minutes after, I saw our own local news condemning this kid.DandyDon wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:21 am I'll just leave this here. That little Tucker Carlson wannabe cunt needs to be pimp slapped so hard he cant taste jalapenos for a month.
https://ktla.com/2019/01/19/diocese-in- ... ton-rally/
Damn, Leroy'd.
But there’s more video out there. The story may continue to change, but, as I understand it,the kid was picked out of the group as others around him separated. He/they didn’t mock this NA guy, and he didn’t realize he was in a “confrontation.”
Seeing lots of adults calling for his doxxing, expulsion, etc., without even waiting to find out the truth.
No...that kid and his friends surrounded the smaller Indian group and are seen very plainly on video mock chanting, and jeering and intimidating that old man. He said he heard them say say "build that wall" and "trump 2020" Whether they did or not means nothing.....they were clearly purposely trying to mock and intimidate the guy. They deserve the Shit storm coming their way.
I blame Biker.
- CaptQuint
- Biker's Biatch
- Posts: 30361
- Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:18 pm
Re: Aw Hell Gillette- Naw you din'it
Any damn fool can navigate the world sober. It takes a really good sailor to do it drunk
- AnalHamster
- Doctor Chaser
- Posts: 6471
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm
Re: Aw Hell Gillette- Naw you din'it
Meh, they are still schoolkids. What they deserve is some education and being forced into some televised grovelling explaining their newfound respect for indigenous peoples and how sorry they are for being cunts. People do tend to go overboard expressing their faux outrage these days. I can see why the school will probably have to expel him though, their reputation is in the shitter.
- Stapes
- World's Only Blue Collar Guy
- Posts: 12853
- Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:50 pm
- Location: Port St Lucie former Dirty Jerzey
Re: Aw Hell Gillette- Naw you din'it
Another Covington alumni following that Kavanaugh catholic school tradition
I blame Biker.
- CaptQuint
- Biker's Biatch
- Posts: 30361
- Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:18 pm
Re: Aw Hell Gillette- Naw you din'it
A little confession, a couple of hail marys. He'll be right as rain.
Any damn fool can navigate the world sober. It takes a really good sailor to do it drunk
- VinceBordenIII
- Loves swimmin' with bowlegged women!
- Posts: 3075
- Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:03 pm
Re: Aw Hell Gillette- Naw you din'it
That's not what other video indicates. The kids were waiting at their designated meeting place, doing school cheers, and the Indians walked up to them. The kid was standing there, and was singled out as he didn't move away. t appears he did NOT step up to the Indian guy, but the other way around. It took him a while to figure out what was going on, when the younger Indian man started talking shit to a kid behind him.Stapes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 3:32 pmVinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 3:16 pmI just read about this this morning, after reading lots of venom last night on twitter about what should be done to this kid. A letter to their local news says that the actual story is not what’s being presented by the media. In fact, not 15 minutes after, I saw our own local news condemning this kid.DandyDon wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:21 am I'll just leave this here. That little Tucker Carlson wannabe cunt needs to be pimp slapped so hard he cant taste jalapenos for a month.
https://ktla.com/2019/01/19/diocese-in- ... ton-rally/
Damn, Leroy'd.
But there’s more video out there. The story may continue to change, but, as I understand it,the kid was picked out of the group as others around him separated. He/they didn’t mock this NA guy, and he didn’t realize he was in a “confrontation.”
Seeing lots of adults calling for his doxxing, expulsion, etc., without even waiting to find out the truth.
No...that kid and his friends surrounded the smaller Indian group and are seen very plainly on video mock chanting, and jeering and intimidating that old man. He said he heard them say say "build that wall" and "trump 2020" Whether they did or not means nothing.....they were clearly purposely trying to mock and intimidate the guy. They deserve the Shit storm coming their way.
I am content to wait it out.
- VinceBordenIII
- Loves swimmin' with bowlegged women!
- Posts: 3075
- Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:03 pm
Re: Aw Hell Gillette- Naw you din'it
Reading around the Internet, I've seen every kind of projection onto this "incident."
Kid's a drink spiker, rapist, frat boy, Catholic pig, MAGA creep, etc., etc.. He's been doxxed by countless adults, and singled out by all kinds of media all over the nation.
The response says so much more about the pundits than it does the kid. People take their biases and prejudices and put them on this kid if they think it will fit. They turn into a lynch mob.
If/when the actual incident turns out to be otherwise, they will slink away, no lesson learned.
Kid's a drink spiker, rapist, frat boy, Catholic pig, MAGA creep, etc., etc.. He's been doxxed by countless adults, and singled out by all kinds of media all over the nation.
The response says so much more about the pundits than it does the kid. People take their biases and prejudices and put them on this kid if they think it will fit. They turn into a lynch mob.
If/when the actual incident turns out to be otherwise, they will slink away, no lesson learned.