• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Sanctuary-Cities Executive Order Is Trump’s Next Legal Train Wreck

PhantomWolf said:
I'm guessing from this that you are only against the expansion of the executive's power take over responsibilities that are purely the scope of congress, only when that executive is Democrat?
Click to expand...

You seem to guess a lot.

Does the executive branch have the perogitive on border security?
 
logger said:
Okay, that isn't the way I said it, you seem to be the one using it that way. Are you a racist against Arabs too?
Click to expand...
No I am not, but you sort of outed yourself there. Nice job, though it's been obvious for quite some time.
and I repeat myself!
Click to expand...

Yes, you've repeated your blather.
 
logger said:
Certainly someone from the middle would recognize what this is.
Click to expand...

What are you blabbering about, and how is that a response to my post?

Just another example of your extreme leftism?
Click to expand...

Given that you're possibly the most ignorant person on the topic of the left-right political spectrum that I've ever had the pleasure of talking to, your comment is completely worthless.
 
Logger,
When a judge rules against an Executive Order and the Administration has no other recourse but to abide and grumble (and look to appealing to a higher Court), might that not be a sign that the injunction is indeed legal, and not overreach on the part of the judge? If that judge was indeed overstepping his authority, could he not be simply ignored or censured?
 
Resume said:
No I am not, but you sort of outed yourself there. Nice job, though it's been obvious for quite some time.
Click to expand...

Yeah sure, you're the one calling them offensive names and I didn't know you were a racist, thanks for letting us know.
Yes, you've repeated your blather.
Click to expand...

Just keeping it simple for you.
 
logger said:
Yeah sure, you're the one calling them offensive names[
Click to expand...
No, I was asking you a question.
. . . and I didn't know you were a racist, thanks for letting us know.
Click to expand...
I know you are, but what am I is no way to go through life. You typed:
Are you a racist against Arabs too?
Click to expand...
I highlighted your apparent Freudian slip/admission. Now if it's a grammar and usage issue, well Miss Forbush did you a disservice by passing you last year.

Just keeping it simple for you.
Click to expand...
You are confusing blather with simple. Another usage issue I'm afraid.
 
Lurch said:
Logger,
When a judge rules against an Executive Order and the Administration has no other recourse but to abide and grumble (and look to appealing to a higher Court), might that not be a sign that the injunction is indeed legal, and not overreach on the part of the judge? If that judge was indeed overstepping his authority, could he not be simply ignored or censured?
Click to expand...

They have recourse and are moving forward with that. This judge has thrown out years of precedent and the very same thing liberals have argued to keep the states from protecting their own borders. It will be reversed and quickly.
 
Resume said:
No, I was asking you a question.
Click to expand...
No you were accusing me in the petty way you usually do.
I know you are, but what am I is no way to go through life.
Click to expand...
Take your own advice.

You are confusing blather with simple. Another usage issue I'm afraid.
Click to expand...

You are confusing simple with blather. I try to say things simpler.
 
Last edited:
There's something I find irritating. I read a couple of articles about the ruling, and neither addressed the law at all. They talked about it in political terms. Trump wants this. Activists want that. This team won. That team lost.

Fine, fine, but.....what is the law?


I'm guessing, from content in this thread, that the ruling was based on the idea that Congress passed a law that said, "The federal government will give cities/counties/local entities money" and Trump's executive order attached strings to that, "i.e. We won't give them any money unless they do what we want." If that's the case, then it's pretty clearly unconstitutional, but it would be nice if they actually covered that sort of thing in the articles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom