Home› Tug Tavern

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sign In Register
Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

Courteous of Trump to give Sanctuary Cities a heads up

doogiedoogie Member Posts: 15,072
in Tug Tavern
It would be cold to simply withhold grant money without a warning first
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
«1

Comments

  • UWhuskytskeetUWhuskytskeet Member Posts: 7,110
    Also unconstitutional.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • SledogSledog Member Posts: 33,209 Standard Supporter
    UWhuskytskeet said:

    Also unconstitutional.

    According to a San Fran judge that raised over 200K for BHO anyway....

    Nothing to see here move along.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • KaepskneeKaepsknee Member Posts: 14,849
    UWhuskytskeet said:

    Also unconstitutional.

    Just because one activist SF judge blocked it doesn't mean it's unconstitutional, at least yet.

    Do you think that illegal immigrants that commit crimes should be allowed to stay in the country?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • doogiedoogie Member Posts: 15,072
    It''s now unconstitutional for the President to reaffirm current federal law?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 2001400ex2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    doogie said:

    It''s now unconstitutional for the President to reaffirm current federal law?

    Yes. Read the Constitution. What a cool day when people forget about states rights.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • KaepskneeKaepsknee Member Posts: 14,849
    @skeets silence speaks volumes.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • PurpleJPurpleJ Member Posts: 36,960 Founders Club
    Should nuke the cities that won't comply IMO
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • AZDuckAZDuck Member Posts: 15,381
    GrundleStiltzkin said:

    2001400ex said:

    doogie said:

    It''s now unconstitutional for the President to reaffirm current federal law?

    Yes. Read the Constitution. What a cool day when people forget about states rights.
    Great racist dogwhistle as always.
    image
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HoustonHuskyHoustonHusky Member Posts: 5,964
    2001400ex said:

    doogie said:

    It''s now unconstitutional for the President to reaffirm current federal law?

    Yes. Read the Constitution. What a cool day when people forget about states rights.
    What a cool day it is for it being a state's right for the Feds to unconditionally send them money
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 2001400ex2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    HoustonHusky said:

    2001400ex said:

    doogie said:

    It''s now unconstitutional for the President to reaffirm current federal law?

    Yes. Read the Constitution. What a cool day when people forget about states rights.
    What a cool day it is for it being a state's right for the Feds to unconditionally send them money
    California is a net donator to the Fed. Or did you miss the memo?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 104,640 Founders Club
    Jim Crow forever!

    image
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • SledogSledog Member Posts: 33,209 Standard Supporter
    2001400ex said:

    doogie said:

    It''s now unconstitutional for the President to reaffirm current federal law?

    Yes. Read the Constitution. What a cool day when people forget about states rights.
    Didn't see these posts when your boy Obunghole threatened state grant money and funding if states didn't toe the line on transgender bathrooms.

    Your comfort while squatting isn't a states rights issue?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • BennyBeaverBennyBeaver Member Posts: 13,346
    Trump's base live in the states that suck off the fed govt.

    Sad!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • doogiedoogie Member Posts: 15,072
    2001400ex said:

    HoustonHusky said:

    2001400ex said:

    doogie said:

    It''s now unconstitutional for the President to reaffirm current federal law?

    Yes. Read the Constitution. What a cool day when people forget about states rights.
    What a cool day it is for it being a state's right for the Feds to unconditionally send them money
    California is a net donator to the Fed. Or did you miss the memo?
    oh, oh, looks like 'somebody' doesn't know the Fed is privately owned!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • TierbsHsotBoobsTierbsHsotBoobs Member Posts: 39,680
    doogie said:

    2001400ex said:

    HoustonHusky said:

    2001400ex said:

    doogie said:

    It''s now unconstitutional for the President to reaffirm current federal law?

    Yes. Read the Constitution. What a cool day when people forget about states rights.
    What a cool day it is for it being a state's right for the Feds to unconditionally send them money
    California is a net donator to the Fed. Or did you miss the memo?
    oh, oh, looks like 'somebody' doesn't know the Fed is privately owned!
    Related: it looks like Hondo can't spell Feds and your reading comprehension is shit.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 2001400ex2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    doogie said:

    2001400ex said:

    HoustonHusky said:

    2001400ex said:

    doogie said:

    It''s now unconstitutional for the President to reaffirm current federal law?

    Yes. Read the Constitution. What a cool day when people forget about states rights.
    What a cool day it is for it being a state's right for the Feds to unconditionally send them money
    California is a net donator to the Fed. Or did you miss the memo?
    oh, oh, looks like 'somebody' doesn't know the Fed is privately owned!
    Wrong.gif (Tho boobs is right and you don't have a clue)

    The Federal Reserve Banks have an intermediate legal status, with some features of private corporations and some features of public federal agencies. The United States has an interest in the Federal Reserve Banks as tax-exempt federally created instrumentalities whose profits belong to the federal government, but this interest is not proprietary.[8] In Lewis v. United States,[9] the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated that: "The Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA [the Federal Tort Claims Act], but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations." The opinion went on to say, however, that: "The Reserve Banks have properly been held to be federal instrumentalities for some purposes." Another relevant decision is Scott v. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City,[8] in which the distinction is made between Federal Reserve Banks, which are federally created instrumentalities, and the Board of Governors, which is a federal agency.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Bank
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • dhdawgdhdawg Member Posts: 13,326
    Remember when the republican party stood for local control of government? Yeah that's only when it's on issues they like. When it comes to policing and weed it's feds all the way baby
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HoustonHuskyHoustonHusky Member Posts: 5,964
    edited April 2017
    Local control of national immigration policy....yeah, that's always been a hallmark of the conservative movement. Brilliant.

    Trying to rival HondoFS who somehow thinks linking to Wiki on an off-topic issue somehow proves a point?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • KaepskneeKaepsknee Member Posts: 14,849
    BennyBeaver said:

    Trump's base live in the states that suck off the fed govt.

    Sad!

    You mean like the Oregon and Washington games?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.