It is currently Thu Nov 28, 2024 1:49 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 100 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 9:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:05 pm
Posts: 68612
pizza_Place: Lina's Pizza
pittmike wrote:
You can read 21 pages. I'm good.


Like you have something better to do.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
There is not a damned thing wrong with people who are bull shitters.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 9:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 40651
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
Terry's Peeps wrote:
pittmike wrote:
You can read 21 pages. I'm good.


Like you have something better to do.


Hold on, let me log in as Caller Bob...

_________________
Elections have consequences.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 9:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 92106
Location: To the left of my post
It would be an interesting list to see what federal laws Chicago should ignore.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 9:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
Terry's Peeps wrote:
pittmike wrote:
You can read 21 pages. I'm good.


Like you have something better to do.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 9:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:05 pm
Posts: 68612
pizza_Place: Lina's Pizza
pittmike wrote:
Terry's Peeps wrote:
pittmike wrote:
You can read 21 pages. I'm good.


Like you have something better to do.


Hold on, let me log in as Caller Bob...

:lol:

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
There is not a damned thing wrong with people who are bull shitters.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 9:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 4:11 pm
Posts: 57250
rogers park bryan wrote:
Terry's Peeps wrote:
pittmike wrote:
You can read 21 pages. I'm good.


Like you have something better to do.

Image

Man I miss Pinkman, bitch! I wish they would do a spinoff about him.

_________________
"He is a loathsome, offensive brute
--yet I can't look away."


Frank Coztansa wrote:
I have MANY years of experience in trying to appreciate steaming piles of dogshit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 9:18 am 
Regular Reader wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:

Pick a lane. Or a constitutional section upon which to base your argument.


Was the "lawfulness of sanctuary cities under the 10th" lane not picked?


Get back to me when the feds get their asses kicked in court. There is no duty for the locals to actively here. If the ag, idiot potus and his yes men couldn't figure out the constitution yet, maybe they'll get it after the on coming thrashing

They did. In Arizona.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 9:20 am 
pittmike wrote:
You can read 21 pages. I'm good.

Ignoring when you and your team held somebody up as a hero for doing the same thing another is getting bashed for here. That's so unlike you.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 9:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 40651
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
Baby McNown wrote:
pittmike wrote:
You can read 21 pages. I'm good.

Ignoring when you and your team held somebody up as a hero for doing the same thing another is getting bashed for here. That's so unlike you.


I don't remember some clerk being my hero but you go ahead.

_________________
Elections have consequences.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 9:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
Baby McNown wrote:
Ignoring when you and your team held somebody up as a hero for doing the same thing another is getting bashed for here.

This is quite a sentence


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 10:20 am 
rogers park bryan wrote:
Baby McNown wrote:
Ignoring when you and your team held somebody up as a hero for doing the same thing another is getting bashed for here.

This is quite a sentence

Thanks. Oxford will be using it in advanced writing courses this fall. You should sign up.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 10:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 1:10 pm
Posts: 32067
pizza_Place: Milano's
Baby McNown wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
Baby McNown wrote:
Ignoring when you and your team held somebody up as a hero for doing the same thing another is getting bashed for here.

This is quite a sentence

Thanks. Oxford will be using it in advanced writing courses this fall. You should sign up.


:lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 22578
pizza_Place: Giordano's
Regular Reader wrote:
I had forgotten her name.

Jln, this is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. She was actively denying people their civil rights. Entirely differentmatter.


I don't think so, especially when this is your major premise:

Regular Reader wrote:
Jln, you're completely missing the point here. The federal government cannot force local and state actors to actively enforce solely federal law. Think California, Colorado and other states with legal marijuana


That premise is unequivocal, by my reading of it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:10 pm
Posts: 38609
Location: "Across 110th Street"
So now you want to force the local police to enforce the Internal Revenue code as well?

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 22578
pizza_Place: Giordano's
Regular Reader wrote:
So now you want to force the local police to enforce the Internal Revenue code as well?


Huh? YOU made the unequivocal statement, quoted again for reference:

Quote:
The federal government cannot force local and state actors to actively enforce solely federal law.


Obviously there was an exception made to that with Kim Davis, which you ostensibly think is good. However, you think not forcing local governments to enforce federal immigration law is also a good thing. I just want to know your reasoning for the inconsistent logic.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:39 am 
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
So now you want to force the local police to enforce the Internal Revenue code as well?


Huh? YOU made the unequivocal statement, quoted again for reference:

Quote:
The federal government cannot force local and state actors to actively enforce solely federal law.


Obviously there was an exception made to that with Kim Davis, which you ostensibly think is good. However, you think not forcing local governments to enforce federal immigration law is also a good thing. I just want to know your reasoning for the inconsistent logic.

It's not an unequivocal statement. Federal taxes are solely a federal law.

The inconsistent logic about Kim Davis is very prevalent in this thread but the exact opposite of what you are asserting. The group of people who are up in arms that the Tiny Dancer won't use CPD to do ICE's job are the same people who think that Kim Davis was some sort of hero for refusing to issue marriage licences to the icky gays when the BHO Admin told her to.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 12:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:10 pm
Posts: 38609
Location: "Across 110th Street"
Baby McNown wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
So now you want to force the local police to enforce the Internal Revenue code as well?


Huh? YOU made the unequivocal statement, quoted again for reference:

Quote:
The federal government cannot force local and state actors to actively enforce solely federal law.


Obviously there was an exception made to that with Kim Davis, which you ostensibly think is good. However, you think not forcing local governments to enforce federal immigration law is also a good thing. I just want to know your reasoning for the inconsistent logic.

It's not an unequivocal statement. Federal taxes are solely a federal law.

The inconsistent logic about Kim Davis is very prevalent in this thread but the exact opposite of what you are asserting. The group of people who are up in arms that the Tiny Dancer won't use CPD to do ICE's job are the same people who think that Kim Davis was some sort of hero for refusing to issue marriage licences to the icky gays when the BHO Admin told her to.


Thank you. It's not just me.

The logic JLN is using is difficult to follow especially as there are so many clear distinctions and this is so clearly an apples to oranges comparison.

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 12:33 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 79590
Location: Ravenswood Manor
pizza_Place: Pete's
Baby McNown wrote:
The group of people who are up in arms that the Tiny Dancer won't use CPD to do ICE's job are the same people who think that Kim Davis was some sort of hero for refusing to issue marriage licences to the icky gays when the BHO Admin told her to.



And vice versa, right?

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 12:36 pm 
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Baby McNown wrote:
The group of people who are up in arms that the Tiny Dancer won't use CPD to do ICE's job are the same people who think that Kim Davis was some sort of hero for refusing to issue marriage licences to the icky gays when the BHO Admin told her to.



And vice versa, right?

Absolutely.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 12:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 22578
pizza_Place: Giordano's
Regular Reader wrote:
Baby McNown wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
So now you want to force the local police to enforce the Internal Revenue code as well?


Huh? YOU made the unequivocal statement, quoted again for reference:

Quote:
The federal government cannot force local and state actors to actively enforce solely federal law.


Obviously there was an exception made to that with Kim Davis, which you ostensibly think is good. However, you think not forcing local governments to enforce federal immigration law is also a good thing. I just want to know your reasoning for the inconsistent logic.

It's not an unequivocal statement. Federal taxes are solely a federal law.

The inconsistent logic about Kim Davis is very prevalent in this thread but the exact opposite of what you are asserting. The group of people who are up in arms that the Tiny Dancer won't use CPD to do ICE's job are the same people who think that Kim Davis was some sort of hero for refusing to issue marriage licences to the icky gays when the BHO Admin told her to.


Thank you. It's not just me.

The logic JLN is using is difficult to follow especially as there are so many clear distinctions and this is so clearly an apples to oranges comparison.


I'll try again: Why is the federal government forcing a state actor to enforce federal law in one instance good, but the same federal government forcing a state actor to enforce federal law in another instance bad?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 12:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 4:29 pm
Posts: 38701
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
The Reader/ McNown team has 1 minute to reply

_________________
Proud member of the white guy grievance committee

It aint the six minutes. Its what happens in those six minutes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 12:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 22578
pizza_Place: Giordano's
badrogue17 wrote:
The Reader/ McNown team has 1 minute to reply


[Something that sounds like an argument but isn't really, like "civil rights are different"]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 12:45 pm 
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
Baby McNown wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
So now you want to force the local police to enforce the Internal Revenue code as well?


Huh? YOU made the unequivocal statement, quoted again for reference:

Quote:
The federal government cannot force local and state actors to actively enforce solely federal law.


Obviously there was an exception made to that with Kim Davis, which you ostensibly think is good. However, you think not forcing local governments to enforce federal immigration law is also a good thing. I just want to know your reasoning for the inconsistent logic.

It's not an unequivocal statement. Federal taxes are solely a federal law.

The inconsistent logic about Kim Davis is very prevalent in this thread but the exact opposite of what you are asserting. The group of people who are up in arms that the Tiny Dancer won't use CPD to do ICE's job are the same people who think that Kim Davis was some sort of hero for refusing to issue marriage licences to the icky gays when the BHO Admin told her to.


Thank you. It's not just me.

The logic JLN is using is difficult to follow especially as there are so many clear distinctions and this is so clearly an apples to oranges comparison.


I'll try again: Why is the federal government forcing a state actor to enforce federal law in one instance good, but the same federal government forcing a state actor to enforce federal law in another instance bad?

You tell us.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 12:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:10 pm
Posts: 38609
Location: "Across 110th Street"
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
I'll try again: Why is the federal government forcing a state actor to enforce federal law in one instance good, but the same federal government forcing a state actor to enforce federal law in another instance bad?


I've never said that it is good or bad in this instance.

But are you really blind to the fact that on one hand you have the feds trying to force locals to actively use their resources to enforce a wholly federal (& possibly unconstitutional) mandate and on the other you have a local actor under color of law actively denying some their Constitutionally protected rights?

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 12:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:10 pm
Posts: 38609
Location: "Across 110th Street"
Baby McNown wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
I'll try again: Why is the federal government forcing a state actor to enforce federal law in one instance good, but the same federal government forcing a state actor to enforce federal law in another instance bad?

You tell us.


And include your usual dissertation on how all things not specifically enumerated shall remain in the sole province of the states, (or such other mumbo jumbo :wink: ) should NOT apply in this instance.

For others here is the 10th Amendment Juice loves when talking State's rights, until now. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.


Last edited by Regular Reader on Tue Aug 08, 2017 12:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 12:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 22578
pizza_Place: Giordano's
Regular Reader wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
I'll try again: Why is the federal government forcing a state actor to enforce federal law in one instance good, but the same federal government forcing a state actor to enforce federal law in another instance bad?


I've never said that it is good or bad in this instance.

But are you really blind to the fact that on one hand you have the feds trying to force locals to actively use their resources to enforce a wholly federal (& possibly unconstitutional) mandate and on the other you have a local actor under color of law actively denying some their Constitutionally protected rights?


Which one is which?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 12:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:10 pm
Posts: 38609
Location: "Across 110th Street"
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
I'll try again: Why is the federal government forcing a state actor to enforce federal law in one instance good, but the same federal government forcing a state actor to enforce federal law in another instance bad?


I've never said that it is good or bad in this instance.

But are you really blind to the fact that on one hand you have the feds trying to force locals to actively use their resources to enforce a wholly federal (& possibly unconstitutional) mandate and on the other you have a local actor under color of law actively denying some their Constitutionally protected rights?


Which one is which?


I guess the 14th Amendment doesn't exist in your world.

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 12:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 22578
pizza_Place: Giordano's
Regular Reader wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
I'll try again: Why is the federal government forcing a state actor to enforce federal law in one instance good, but the same federal government forcing a state actor to enforce federal law in another instance bad?


I've never said that it is good or bad in this instance.

But are you really blind to the fact that on one hand you have the feds trying to force locals to actively use their resources to enforce a wholly federal (& possibly unconstitutional) mandate and on the other you have a local actor under color of law actively denying some their Constitutionally protected rights?


Which one is which?


I guess the 14th Amendment doesn't exist in your world.


:lol: Lighten up, Francis.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 1:03 pm 
Juice I'm going to pull a PittMike and not go back and read 21 pages, but I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to know which side of the Kim Davis argument you are on. Why do you think Tiny Dancer should just roll over for Trump and Sessions?


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 1:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:10 pm
Posts: 38609
Location: "Across 110th Street"
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
I'll try again: Why is the federal government forcing a state actor to enforce federal law in one instance good, but the same federal government forcing a state actor to enforce federal law in another instance bad?


I've never said that it is good or bad in this instance.

But are you really blind to the fact that on one hand you have the feds trying to force locals to actively use their resources to enforce a wholly federal (& possibly unconstitutional) mandate and on the other you have a local actor under color of law actively denying some their Constitutionally protected rights?


Which one is which?


I guess the 14th Amendment doesn't exist in your world.


:lol: Lighten up, Francis.


But does it??? :D

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 100 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group