Aw Hell Gillette- Naw you din'it

[Antknot]

But it is OK to break laws whenever you feel like it. You know, because and stuff.

What laws are that?

The laws YOU referred to, literally a handful of posts up, is this very thread. Jesus Christ, TGIF. I need a long weekend away this place.

Cali isn't breaking any laws by enforcing Federal law

How about not enforcing federal laws? And ignoring requests from federal agencies?

Where does it say states must enforce federal law?

I'm sure they signed some kind of mutual aid agreement.

[CaptQuint]

What laws are that?

The laws YOU referred to, literally a handful of posts up, is this very thread. Jesus Christ, TGIF. I need a long weekend away this place.

Cali isn't breaking any laws by enforcing Federal law

How about not enforcing federal laws? And ignoring requests from federal agencies?

Where does it say states must enforce federal law?

I'm sure they signed some kind of mutual aid agreement.

Oh? Are you sure? So you have something to back that up?

[AnalHamster]

What laws are that?

The laws YOU referred to, literally a handful of posts up, is this very thread. Jesus Christ, TGIF. I need a long weekend away this place.

Cali isn't breaking any laws by enforcing Federal law

How about not enforcing federal laws? And ignoring requests from federal agencies?

Where does it say states must enforce federal law?

I'm sure they signed some kind of mutual aid agreement.

You can't change the constitution with a contract.

[Antknot]

The laws YOU referred to, literally a handful of posts up, is this very thread. Jesus Christ, TGIF. I need a long weekend away this place.

Cali isn't breaking any laws by enforcing Federal law

How about not enforcing federal laws? And ignoring requests from federal agencies?

Where does it say states must enforce federal law?

I'm sure they signed some kind of mutual aid agreement.

Oh? Are you sure? So you have something to back that up?

Prove me wrong. I dare ya.

[CaptQuint]

Cali isn't breaking any laws by enforcing Federal law

How about not enforcing federal laws? And ignoring requests from federal agencies?

Where does it say states must enforce federal law?

I'm sure they signed some kind of mutual aid agreement.

Oh? Are you sure? So you have something to back that up?

Prove me wrong. I dare ya.

You're so sure and you're making the claim. Put up or shut up

[AnalHamster]

Prove me wrong. I dare ya.

I already did, which part couldn't you understand?

[Antknot]

Prove me wrong. I dare ya.

I already did, which part couldn't you understand?

Well, since you weren't in the quote chain whose nic did you use? Or is this more of your bias showing?

[AnalHamster]

Prove me wrong. I dare ya.

I already did, which part couldn't you understand?

Well, since you weren't in the quote chain whose nic did you use? Or is this more of your bias showing?

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]

Prove me wrong. I dare ya.

I already did, which part couldn't you understand?

Well, since you weren't in the quote chain whose nic did you use? Or is this more of your bias showing?

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.

Saw no posting from you in the thread chain. So don't know what you said.

[AnalHamster]

Prove me wrong. I dare ya.

I already did, which part couldn't you understand?

Well, since you weren't in the quote chain whose nic did you use? Or is this more of your bias showing?

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.

Saw no posting from you in the thread chain. So don't know what you said.

Uh huh, so your claim is that despite reading and responding to my post, before that you couldn't see my posts. Very convincing.

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.

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 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.

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.

[Antknot]

Prove me wrong. I dare ya.

I already did, which part couldn't you understand?

Well, since you weren't in the quote chain whose nic did you use? Or is this more of your bias showing?

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.

Saw no posting from you in the thread chain. So don't know what you said.

Uh huh, so your claim is that despite reading and responding to my post, before that you couldn't see my posts. Very convincing.

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.

I went back and saw the "you can't change...with a contract." post. Never responded to it.

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]

I already did, which part couldn't you understand?

Well, since you weren't in the quote chain whose nic did you use? Or is this more of your bias showing?

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.

Saw no posting from you in the thread chain. So don't know what you said.

Uh huh, so your claim is that despite reading and responding to my post, before that you couldn't see my posts. Very convincing.

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.

I went back and saw the "you can't change...with a contract." post. Never responded to it.

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.

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]

Well, since you weren't in the quote chain whose nic did you use? Or is this more of your bias showing?

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.

Saw no posting from you in the thread chain. So don't know what you said.

Uh huh, so your claim is that despite reading and responding to my post, before that you couldn't see my posts. Very convincing.

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.

I went back and saw the "you can't change...with a contract." post. Never responded to it.

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.

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.

Never claimed a change to constitution.

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]

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.

Saw no posting from you in the thread chain. So don't know what you said.

Uh huh, so your claim is that despite reading and responding to my post, before that you couldn't see my posts. Very convincing.

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.

I went back and saw the "you can't change...with a contract." post. Never responded to it.

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.

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.

Never claimed a change to constitution.

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?

A contract cannot change the constitution.

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]

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.

[VinceBordenIII]

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.

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.

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]

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.

[AnalHamster]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Stapes]

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.

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.

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.

[CaptQuint]

[AnalHamster]

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]

Another Covington alumni following that Kavanaugh catholic school tradition

[CaptQuint]

A little confession, a couple of hail marys. He'll be right as rain.

[VinceBordenIII]

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.

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.

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.

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.

I am content to wait it out.

[VinceBordenIII]

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.