Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Seriously?
Comments
-
My grievances? Is this just like your bullshit about how I was supposedly offering financial advise? You just string words together whether the make any sense or not don't ya dumbfuck.CirrhosisDawg said:
Take your grievances to trump.SFGbob said:
"Illegal immigration now, Illegal immigration tomorrow, Illegal immigration forever!!!!"CirrhosisDawg said:
You’ll win next time! Except there isn’t going to be a next time. Why won’t fat boy appeal? The district order stands. It’s like bull Connor? Is that your argument? You should win easily then right?SFGbob said:
You had one District Court judge rule against the Administration. Every step of the way!!!!CirrhosisDawg said:
You should be on really solid legal standing then, right?RaceBannon said:He's onto to you like I am @CirrhosisDawg
Tell us again how sanctuary laws are illegal, and unconstitutional? You’ve lost every step of the way so far but I’m sure you have a good argument. It’s like Orval Faubus all over again! Except you can’t win the argument in policy or law.
What a dumbfuck
George Wallace lives, and he is still a Rat.
California doesn’t enforce or pay for federal immigration law. It’s not our responsibility. Fat boy is always free to take legal action. He won’t, because just like you, he’s a giant fucking pussy and will lose.
The fact that you parroting George Wallace isn't one of my "grievances" dumbfuck. And why is it that you can never back up that twat of mouth of yours? According to you I'm such a fucking pussy yet you're the one who is always running and hiding like a Kunt when you're asked a question.
-
One question.SFGbob said:
My grievances? Is this just like your bullshit about how I was supposedly offering financial advise? You just string words together whether the make any sense or not don't ya dumbfuck.CirrhosisDawg said:
Take your grievances to trump.SFGbob said:
"Illegal immigration now, Illegal immigration tomorrow, Illegal immigration forever!!!!"CirrhosisDawg said:
You’ll win next time! Except there isn’t going to be a next time. Why won’t fat boy appeal? The district order stands. It’s like bull Connor? Is that your argument? You should win easily then right?SFGbob said:
You had one District Court judge rule against the Administration. Every step of the way!!!!CirrhosisDawg said:
You should be on really solid legal standing then, right?RaceBannon said:He's onto to you like I am @CirrhosisDawg
Tell us again how sanctuary laws are illegal, and unconstitutional? You’ve lost every step of the way so far but I’m sure you have a good argument. It’s like Orval Faubus all over again! Except you can’t win the argument in policy or law.
What a dumbfuck
George Wallace lives, and he is still a Rat.
California doesn’t enforce or pay for federal immigration law. It’s not our responsibility. Fat boy is always free to take legal action. He won’t, because just like you, he’s a giant fucking pussy and will lose.
The fact that you parroting George Wallace isn't one of my "grievances" dumbfuck. And why is it that you can never back up that twat of mouth of yours? According to you I'm such a fucking pussy yet you're the one who is always running and hiding like a Kunt when you're asked a question.
Why won’t trump appeal his sanctuary law court losses?
Answer the question GayBob! You are not going to run and hide like a giant fucking trumptastic pussy are you? -
I don't know the answer to your question. When you're not a Kunt its easy CD. I'm unsure of the legal strategy that they are pursuing.
-
Why because they get federal money for the schools?CirrhosisDawg said:
Exact same argument? To an imbecile.SFGbob said:
I believe this was the exact same argument that was used by the people who wanted to keep the "coloreds" out of their kids' schools.CirrhosisDawg said:
Feds should make and enforce federal law.Pitchfork51 said:Sanctuary cities and states should be nuked.
Immigration is entirely a federal responsibility.
California DOJ, DAs, sheriffs and cops enforce local laws. The state does not have an immigration policy nor does it defy federal law.
Fat boy is supposed to enforce federal law. He won’t get one local jail cell or cop for his idiocy. It’s called federalism.
Have you trumptards stopped to consider why fat boy hasnt appealed his sanctuary law court losses?
Denying access to public schools is unconstitutional.
Telling trump to fuck off and enforce, staff and pay for his own MAGAtry is not unconstitutional. It’s not illegal. Immigration is not California’s responsibly you retard and we won’t pay a dime or lift a finger while trump is in office to promote this shitshow.
Why won’t fat boy appeal his sanctuary law court losses GayBob? Why won’t you answer the question?
-
Here's hoping that an illegal wanted by the feds does the dirty to you!CirrhosisDawg said:
Take your grievances to trump.SFGbob said:
"Illegal immigration now, Illegal immigration tomorrow, Illegal immigration forever!!!!"CirrhosisDawg said:
You’ll win next time! Except there isn’t going to be a next time. Why won’t fat boy appeal? The district order stands. It’s like bull Connor? Is that your argument? You should win easily then right?SFGbob said:
You had one District Court judge rule against the Administration. Every step of the way!!!!CirrhosisDawg said:
You should be on really solid legal standing then, right?RaceBannon said:He's onto to you like I am @CirrhosisDawg
Tell us again how sanctuary laws are illegal, and unconstitutional? You’ve lost every step of the way so far but I’m sure you have a good argument. It’s like Orval Faubus all over again! Except you can’t win the argument in policy or law.
What a dumbfuck
George Wallace lives, and he is still a Rat.
California doesn’t enforce or pay for federal immigration law. It’s not our responsibility. Fat boy is always free to take legal action. He won’t, because just like you, he’s a giant fucking pussy and will lose. -
Fair enough.SFGbob said:
O'Keefed has a long, history of squirting tears over child killers who are facing the death penalty. And for all I know the clergyman could have been a prison guard who was also a pastor.creepycoug said:
If we're actually trying to get to the point, maybe it ought to include a discussion of why a Christian clergyman is a state employee.SFGbob said:
No because he wasn't a state employee. Do you think lying helps your case O'Keefed?HHusky said:Fact: he couldn’t have his clergyman in the room because he was not a Christian.
No, it's not a constitutional crisis. But it's a fair question/point to raise.
What the guy did, and false allegations of people supporting him on anything other than the one raised, appears to be someone fucking straw man ass.
Keeping religion out of the state's hands, event the religions we like (perhaps especially the ones we like), still seems like a very good arrangement.
I know, I know, there are these little historical inconsistencies, like In God We Trust, invoking prayer at Congressional events, the Pledge, etc. But we ought not to use those isolated inconsistencies as a rationale for tossing out the entire approach. If you're a Christian, especially so now that the House at least is starting to diversify a bit more than usual.
If the guy had an option to have a non-denominational pastor in the room, I suppose that's one thing.
I'm not a big proponent of the death penalty, because our system, and we, are imperfect and we make mistakes. That one is hard to take back. -
Please to be pointing out where it says "seperation of church and state" in the constitution?creepycoug said:
Fair enough.SFGbob said:
O'Keefed has a long, history of squirting tears over child killers who are facing the death penalty. And for all I know the clergyman could have been a prison guard who was also a pastor.creepycoug said:
If we're actually trying to get to the point, maybe it ought to include a discussion of why a Christian clergyman is a state employee.SFGbob said:
No because he wasn't a state employee. Do you think lying helps your case O'Keefed?HHusky said:Fact: he couldn’t have his clergyman in the room because he was not a Christian.
No, it's not a constitutional crisis. But it's a fair question/point to raise.
What the guy did, and false allegations of people supporting him on anything other than the one raised, appears to be someone fucking straw man ass.
Keeping religion out of the state's hands, event the religions we like (perhaps especially the ones we like), still seems like a very good arrangement.
I know, I know, there are these little historical inconsistencies, like In God We Trust, invoking prayer at Congressional events, the Pledge, etc. But we ought not to use those isolated inconsistencies as a rationale for tossing out the entire approach. If you're a Christian, especially so now that the House at least is starting to diversify a bit more than usual.
If the guy had an option to have a non-denominational pastor in the room, I suppose that's one thing.
I'm not a big proponent of the death penalty, because our system, and we, are imperfect and we make mistakes. That one is hard to take back.
We are and have been a Christian nation. -
I pray this post was a jokeSledog said:
Please to be pointing out where it says "seperation of church and state" in the constitution?creepycoug said:
Fair enough.SFGbob said:
O'Keefed has a long, history of squirting tears over child killers who are facing the death penalty. And for all I know the clergyman could have been a prison guard who was also a pastor.creepycoug said:
If we're actually trying to get to the point, maybe it ought to include a discussion of why a Christian clergyman is a state employee.SFGbob said:
No because he wasn't a state employee. Do you think lying helps your case O'Keefed?HHusky said:Fact: he couldn’t have his clergyman in the room because he was not a Christian.
No, it's not a constitutional crisis. But it's a fair question/point to raise.
What the guy did, and false allegations of people supporting him on anything other than the one raised, appears to be someone fucking straw man ass.
Keeping religion out of the state's hands, event the religions we like (perhaps especially the ones we like), still seems like a very good arrangement.
I know, I know, there are these little historical inconsistencies, like In God We Trust, invoking prayer at Congressional events, the Pledge, etc. But we ought not to use those isolated inconsistencies as a rationale for tossing out the entire approach. If you're a Christian, especially so now that the House at least is starting to diversify a bit more than usual.
If the guy had an option to have a non-denominational pastor in the room, I suppose that's one thing.
I'm not a big proponent of the death penalty, because our system, and we, are imperfect and we make mistakes. That one is hard to take back.
We are and have been a Christian nation. -
So you couldn't find it?MariotaTheGawd said:
I pray this post was a jokeSledog said:
Please to be pointing out where it says "seperation of church and state" in the constitution?creepycoug said:
Fair enough.SFGbob said:
O'Keefed has a long, history of squirting tears over child killers who are facing the death penalty. And for all I know the clergyman could have been a prison guard who was also a pastor.creepycoug said:
If we're actually trying to get to the point, maybe it ought to include a discussion of why a Christian clergyman is a state employee.SFGbob said:
No because he wasn't a state employee. Do you think lying helps your case O'Keefed?HHusky said:Fact: he couldn’t have his clergyman in the room because he was not a Christian.
No, it's not a constitutional crisis. But it's a fair question/point to raise.
What the guy did, and false allegations of people supporting him on anything other than the one raised, appears to be someone fucking straw man ass.
Keeping religion out of the state's hands, event the religions we like (perhaps especially the ones we like), still seems like a very good arrangement.
I know, I know, there are these little historical inconsistencies, like In God We Trust, invoking prayer at Congressional events, the Pledge, etc. But we ought not to use those isolated inconsistencies as a rationale for tossing out the entire approach. If you're a Christian, especially so now that the House at least is starting to diversify a bit more than usual.
If the guy had an option to have a non-denominational pastor in the room, I suppose that's one thing.
I'm not a big proponent of the death penalty, because our system, and we, are imperfect and we make mistakes. That one is hard to take back.
We are and have been a Christian nation. -
Another one of that brilliant replies.MariotaTheGawd said:
I pray this post was a jokeSledog said:
Please to be pointing out where it says "seperation of church and state" in the constitution?creepycoug said:
Fair enough.SFGbob said:
O'Keefed has a long, history of squirting tears over child killers who are facing the death penalty. And for all I know the clergyman could have been a prison guard who was also a pastor.creepycoug said:
If we're actually trying to get to the point, maybe it ought to include a discussion of why a Christian clergyman is a state employee.SFGbob said:
No because he wasn't a state employee. Do you think lying helps your case O'Keefed?HHusky said:Fact: he couldn’t have his clergyman in the room because he was not a Christian.
No, it's not a constitutional crisis. But it's a fair question/point to raise.
What the guy did, and false allegations of people supporting him on anything other than the one raised, appears to be someone fucking straw man ass.
Keeping religion out of the state's hands, event the religions we like (perhaps especially the ones we like), still seems like a very good arrangement.
I know, I know, there are these little historical inconsistencies, like In God We Trust, invoking prayer at Congressional events, the Pledge, etc. But we ought not to use those isolated inconsistencies as a rationale for tossing out the entire approach. If you're a Christian, especially so now that the House at least is starting to diversify a bit more than usual.
If the guy had an option to have a non-denominational pastor in the room, I suppose that's one thing.
I'm not a big proponent of the death penalty, because our system, and we, are imperfect and we make mistakes. That one is hard to take back.
We are and have been a Christian nation.
