Take away California and you take away 1/4 of America's economy. Haha.
TedCruzer wrote:
Yes, he did, minus California. Take that away and he wins by 1.8 million votes.
Next will come the idiot leftist comparisons...I love it!!!!!
Take away California and you take away 1/4 of America's economy. Haha.
TedCruzer wrote:
Yes, he did, minus California. Take that away and he wins by 1.8 million votes.
Next will come the idiot leftist comparisons...I love it!!!!!
Sessions has come out and said there will be no succession. California is the new Confederacy by refusing to obey Federal laws, except in instead of trying to protect their immoral slave system, they are trying to protect their illegal immigrant population. This should be interesting.
DiscoGary wrote:
p.n. wrote:
...
And to answer FP's question about DG's insistence on the "special council" spelling:
DG is not, by any means, the only person to misspell "special counsel." But somebody twitted him on it; and because DG is (apparently) very reluctant to admit any error, he has set out to try to justify his -cil spelling. You'll note that he tries to characterize Mueller and his crew as a special "council."
But they're not. "Council" would imply that other people in the group were more or less at Mueller's level. They aren't: A whole bunch of people work with/for him, but he's the boss--and he is the (singular) special counsel who was appointed. (Takes less than a minute on Google to ascertain that Rosenstein appointed Mueller, period--and then Mueller got a staff.)
So, anyway, in common with a lot of other people (including, need I say, a whole bunch of regulars on LRC), DG doubles down when his beliefs--in this case, a belief about how "counsel" is spelled--are challenged and/or shown to be incorrect. I generally avoid predictions, but will make an exception here: He is going to spell "special counsel" HIS way, not just in this thread but for the rest of his life; and he may very well make other attempts to convince people that there is a group of people known as the "special council."
Which is to say: He'll continue to be wrong.
Uh, no. I just mispelled special counsel because I do'nt yous the tirm "speshial counsel" al the thyme. Butt ounce aye maid the misteak I desided too keap doin it tu git in you're grammer Nazi heds.
Eye wyn. Ewe loose.
Way to go, Lying Gary!
You da MAN!!!
DiscoGary wrote:
Sessions has come out and said there will be no succession. California is the new Confederacy by refusing to obey Federal laws, except in instead of trying to protect their immoral slave system, they are trying to protect their illegal immigrant population. This should be interesting.
Just one thing, Lying Gary - could you try to use English for posting? It's really a pretty solid language. I think you will find that it serves your lying well.
TedCruzer wrote:
Yes, he did, minus California. Take that away and he wins by 1.8 million votes.
Next will come the idiot leftist comparisons...I love it!!!!!
I keep hearing this line of reasoning, which basically amounts to saying that "Trump would have won the popular vote if you don't count all the votes. " I don't understand why anyone would think that is a compelling argument.
local lib wrote:
Trump having an affair with a porn star is the least of our concerns.
Normal in so many ways as well. Good for her for pursuing it. I can't wait for the Clinton denial.
A minor plot point overall as is Trump's litigation attempt in California.
this is it wrote:
TedCruzer wrote:
Yes, he did, minus California. Take that away and he wins by 1.8 million votes.
Next will come the idiot leftist comparisons...I love it!!!!!
I keep hearing this line of reasoning, which basically amounts to saying that "Trump would have won the popular vote if you don't count all the votes. " I don't understand why anyone would think that is a compelling argument.
It isn't. Trumpers don't have compelling arguments at all anymore. There was a little bit of potential very early on for trying someone who was out of the political loop, but a few crazy remarks in, the smart ones bailed on that.
DiscoGary wrote:
Sessions has come out and said there will be no succession. California is the new Confederacy by refusing to obey Federal laws, except in instead of trying to protect their immoral slave system, they are trying to protect their illegal immigrant population. This should be interesting.
So in 1860 the South was enslaving people and wanted to break from the Union to keep doing that.
Now we have California trying to protect the freedom of immigrants and the Feds want to go after them for that.
Slavery was legal. They wanted to change that to help people.
These current undocumented immigrants are not in legal status and California would like to change that to help people.
You can arrest them or you can change the law.
Like possession of marijuana. You can arrest them or change the law.
Like slaves trying to break free. You can arrest them or change the law.
I kind of see a pattern of progress and this administration is backwards.
L L wrote:
DiscoGary wrote:
Sessions has come out and said there will be no succession. California is the new Confederacy by refusing to obey Federal laws, except in instead of trying to protect their immoral slave system, they are trying to protect their illegal immigrant population. This should be interesting.
So in 1860 the South was enslaving people and wanted to break from the Union to keep doing that.
Now we have California trying to protect the freedom of immigrants and the Feds want to go after them for that.
Slavery was legal. They wanted to change that to help people.
These current undocumented immigrants are not in legal status and California would like to change that to help people.
You can arrest them or you can change the law.
Like possession of marijuana. You can arrest them or change the law.
Like slaves trying to break free. You can arrest them or change the law.
I kind of see a pattern of progress and this administration is backwards.
If Dems want to say that any State has the right to disobey Federal laws, then let's get it said and then no one has a right to complain when Republican States disobey Federal laws they don't like. Otherwise States run by Democrats have to obey Federal laws even when the Federal government is run by Republicans. Anything else is the end of the republic.
Is every liberal so far gone that you can't see the danger in allowing States to violate Federal laws at will?
I am not saying that any states have a right to disobey Federal laws.
That's a contradiction - a right to disobey.
I am saying change the laws to make things right.
If Sessions is in his right to prosecute or sue, then let him do that.
People had the right to abduct and enslave Africans until we finally corrected that.
Progress will come and conservatives will always lag behind.
(Notice I didn't say Republicans. Republicans used to be progressive and Democrats conservative and they flipped in the 1900s)
DiscoGary wrote:
L L wrote:
So in 1860 the South was enslaving people and wanted to break from the Union to keep doing that.
Now we have California trying to protect the freedom of immigrants and the Feds want to go after them for that.
Slavery was legal. They wanted to change that to help people.
These current undocumented immigrants are not in legal status and California would like to change that to help people.
You can arrest them or you can change the law.
Like possession of marijuana. You can arrest them or change the law.
Like slaves trying to break free. You can arrest them or change the law.
I kind of see a pattern of progress and this administration is backwards.
If Dems want to say that any State has the right to disobey Federal laws, then let's get it said and then no one has a right to complain when Republican States disobey Federal laws they don't like. Otherwise States run by Democrats have to obey Federal laws even when the Federal government is run by Republicans. Anything else is the end of the republic.
Is every liberal so far gone that you can't see the danger in allowing States to violate Federal laws at will?
What federal law is being broken?
DiscoGary wrote:
L L wrote:
You can arrest them or you can change the law.
Like possession of marijuana. You can arrest them or change the law.
If Dems want to say that any State has the right to disobey Federal laws, then let's get it said and then no one has a right to complain when Republican States disobey Federal laws they don't like. Otherwise States run by Democrats have to obey Federal laws even when the Federal government is run by Republicans. Anything else is the end of the republic.
Is every liberal so far gone that you can't see the danger in allowing States to violate Federal laws at will?
Your reading comprehension is terrible.
DiscoGary wrote:
L L wrote:
So in 1860 the South was enslaving people and wanted to break from the Union to keep doing that.
Now we have California trying to protect the freedom of immigrants and the Feds want to go after them for that.
Slavery was legal. They wanted to change that to help people.
These current undocumented immigrants are not in legal status and California would like to change that to help people.
You can arrest them or you can change the law.
Like possession of marijuana. You can arrest them or change the law.
Like slaves trying to break free. You can arrest them or change the law.
I kind of see a pattern of progress and this administration is backwards.
If Dems want to say that any State has the right to disobey Federal laws, then let's get it said and then no one has a right to complain when Republican States disobey Federal laws they don't like. Otherwise States run by Democrats have to obey Federal laws even when the Federal government is run by Republicans. Anything else is the end of the republic.
Is every liberal so far gone that you can't see the danger in allowing States to violate Federal laws at will?
Sanctuary cities DO NOT violate Federal law.
Until the courts say different, stop making that stupid argument.
DiscoGary wrote:
Sessions has come out and said there will be no succession. California is the new Confederacy by refusing to obey Federal laws, except in instead of trying to protect their immoral slave system, they are trying to protect their illegal immigrant population. This should be interesting.
I recommend that you consult a dictionary of political terminology.
Flagpole wrote:
OLD SMTC SOB wrote:
Poor snowflake. Mommy should get you a tissue and a safety pin so that bad man Hrump dosent make you cry.
This is the response of someone who doesn't know how to make an intelligent point. Snowflake? Doesn't make you cry? Dude, I though you were "OLD". Bring it stronger if you want anyone to consider your points at all. Seriously.
Interesting that your buddies on here can call people racists, un-american, nazi's, pathetic excuses for human beings, idiots, and on and on and on. Where's your outrage when that happens? 'When was the last time you called someone out for that? And you're upset by the use of the word "snowflake". I get it. So does the rest of the country that elected Trump. Its the pompous buffoonery of those on the left and their misguided, "holier than thou" opinion of themselves. That also seems to be the prevailing wisdom in Hollywood as well. Thankfully, that all got squashed in 2016. And I'm still gleeful.
OLD SMTC SOB wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
This is the response of someone who doesn't know how to make an intelligent point. Snowflake? Doesn't make you cry? Dude, I though you were "OLD". Bring it stronger if you want anyone to consider your points at all. Seriously.
Interesting that your buddies on here can call people racists, un-american, nazi's, pathetic excuses for human beings, idiots, and on and on and on. Where's your outrage when that happens? 'When was the last time you called someone out for that?
Any posts from the left merely resorting to ad hominem attacks are equally as bereft of substance (such as just saying Lyin’ Gary, without pointing out his lies). That doesn’t make your response any more mature or change the fact that you didn’t address any of the points raised.
Fat hurts wrote:
DiscoGary wrote:
If Dems want to say that any State has the right to disobey Federal laws, then let's get it said and then no one has a right to complain when Republican States disobey Federal laws they don't like. Otherwise States run by Democrats have to obey Federal laws even when the Federal government is run by Republicans. Anything else is the end of the republic.
Is every liberal so far gone that you can't see the danger in allowing States to violate Federal laws at will?
Sanctuary cities DO NOT violate Federal law.
Until the courts say different, stop making that stupid argument.
"One (CA law) prohibits employers from letting immigration agents enter worksites or view employee files without a subpoena or warrant, an effort to prevent workplace raids. Another stops local governments from contracting with for-profit companies and ICE to hold immigrants. Justice Department officials said that violates the Constitution’s supremacy clause, which renders invalid state laws that conflict with federal ones.
The Supreme Court reinforced the federal government’s primacy in enforcing immigration law when it blocked much of Arizona’s tough 2010 immigration law on similar grounds. The high court found several key provisions undermined federal immigration law, though it upheld a provision requiring officers, while enforcing other laws, to question the immigration status of people suspected of being in the country illegally."
No matter what, pull all grants and discretionary funding from States with sanctuary cities. That's legal too. If liberals don't want to play be what's right or wrong, then let's just go to war with what's "legal".
OLD SMTC SOB wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
This is the response of someone who doesn't know how to make an intelligent point. Snowflake? Doesn't make you cry? Dude, I though you were "OLD". Bring it stronger if you want anyone to consider your points at all. Seriously.
Interesting that your buddies on here can call people racists, un-american, nazi's, pathetic excuses for human beings, idiots, and on and on and on. Where's your outrage when that happens? 'When was the last time you called someone out for that? And you're upset by the use of the word "snowflake". I get it. So does the rest of the country that elected Trump. Its the pompous buffoonery of those on the left and their misguided, "holier than thou" opinion of themselves. That also seems to be the prevailing wisdom in Hollywood as well. Thankfully, that all got squashed in 2016. And I'm still gleeful.
Flagpole isn't upset. He's mocking your use of snowflake.
the grand inquisitor wrote:
OLD SMTC SOB wrote:
Interesting that your buddies on here can call people racists, un-american, nazi's, pathetic excuses for human beings, idiots, and on and on and on. Where's your outrage when that happens? 'When was the last time you called someone out for that?
Any posts from the left merely resorting to ad hominem attacks are equally as bereft of substance (such as just saying Lyin’ Gary, without pointing out his lies). That doesn’t make your response any more mature or change the fact that you didn’t address any of the points raised.
CORRECT!