RunRyder RC
WATCH
 1 page 1032 views POST REPLY
HomeOff Topics News & Politics › No Free Speech At UC Berkeley?...THEN NO FEDERAL FUNDS
04-26-2017 12:16 PM  15 months agoPost 1
Noobyflyer

rrVeteran

Clearwater, FL

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Easy as that. Stop PLAYING with these Fascist Liberals that are hijacking institutions and just pull their Federal funds. Compel these institutions to fire the bastards that make reckless decisions and undermine the foundation of our nation.

Freedom of Speech. Either live by it, or get the HELL OUT!

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
04-26-2017 01:05 PM  15 months agoPost 2
rcmiket

rrVeteran

El Paso,Texas

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Same to sanctuary cities.

CUT THEM OFF.

Mike

"When Inverted down is up and up is expensive"

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
04-26-2017 03:00 PM  15 months agoPost 3
sjgusmc21

rrApprentice

San Antonio, Texas

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I am completely at a loss for words when it comes to a Judge striking down the Sanctuary City order.

How can they do this? It is quite clear that these cities are in violation of Federal Immigration Laws. So how can they do this?

And....I believe these Judges were appointed by Obama, some political appointee's, so can the not be replaced?

Just freak'n unreal.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
04-26-2017 03:08 PM  15 months agoPost 4
rcmiket

rrVeteran

El Paso,Texas

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

How can they do this?
They can't. Some courts (not all) have mistakenly taken it upon themselves to make law rather than interpret law. Liberals pick and choose what liberal judge they appeal too to get their desired results.

Bull$hit.

Mike

"When Inverted down is up and up is expensive"

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
04-26-2017 08:53 PM  15 months agoPost 5
tadawson

rrElite Veteran

Lewisville, TX

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

All I can say is that when this hits the fan in SCOTUS, it should be fun to watch, if nothing else. Yet another dimtard epic meltdown imminent!

Friends don't let friends become electrotarded . . . .

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
04-27-2017 12:51 PM  15 months agoPost 6
rcmiket

rrVeteran

El Paso,Texas

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Here in Texas we passed HB 12 cutting funding to "sanctuary" cities here.
Good move as I see it. The Liberals are losing their minds in Austin.
Now it's time for the DOJ to put the heat on the cities that want to play games with Federal Law.

Mike

"When Inverted down is up and up is expensive"

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
05-03-2017 12:57 AM  14 months agoPost 7
Noobyflyer

rrVeteran

Clearwater, FL

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

It's called judge shopping. Junkies do the same thing and call it Doctor shopping.

Liberals plant their appeals and or agenda into an activist judge's hands to get the answer that they want and overturn a President. It always ends up at the Supreme Court and it will get destroyed there by the 5/4 court. We get another pick when Batty Ginsburg retires this summer. Then we have 6/3. Game, set, match you Kommie bastards.

Own SCOTUS and you keep the country American.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
05-03-2017 01:41 AM  14 months agoPost 8
sjgusmc21

rrApprentice

San Antonio, Texas

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

^Well said.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
05-03-2017 01:49 AM  14 months agoPost 9
wjvail

rrKey Veteran

Meridian, Mississippi

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

We get another pick when Batty Ginsburg retires this summer. Then we have 6/3. Game, set, match you Kommie bastards.

Can a Supreme Court judge be 22 years old? Something is lost if a completely capable judge is appointed to the Supreme Court if he or she is 102 years old.

"Well, Nothing bad can happen now."

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
05-03-2017 02:10 AM  14 months agoPost 10
wjvail

rrKey Veteran

Meridian, Mississippi

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Here in Texas we passed HB 12 cutting funding to "sanctuary" cities here.
Good move as I see it. The Liberals are losing their minds in Austin.
Now it's time for the DOJ to put the heat on the cities that want to play games with Federal Law.
This is incredibly interesting to me. I'm a transplant to Mississippi but as long as I have live here, there has been discussion as to weather the civil war was about state's rights or slavery. Was the civil war about slavery in-and-of-itself or was it about the federal government's ability to enforce law on states?

At this moment in time we are seeing an exact parallel. The larger population of America has elected a federal government which has in turn enacted FEDERAL law to which some (confederated) states are saying:

I wonder if California, Washington, Oregon, New York etc loose this fight, will they adopt the confederate battle flag? Or will they create their own? True irony.

"Well, Nothing bad can happen now."

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
05-03-2017 08:53 PM  14 months agoPost 11
Str8wing

rrNovice

Las Vegas, NV - USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

WJVail...

The war of northern aggression was about state's rights. Slavery was a side issue (even to Lincoln). He (Lincoln) only codified the "Emancipation Proclamation" to piss the people of the South off. It didn't even apply to the northern states, and it couldn't legally apply to the South as they were a separate country by then.

The "civil war" wasn't a civil war at all. The south had already seceded by democratic vote, and created an entirely new government. The rich north couldn't have that. They wanted (coveted) the South's textiles, tobacco and produce. Hence the war, where they stole them. Far from being a hero, Lincoln was the greatest mass murderer in American history, and the beginning of the end of the republic. I despise him.

To those who would choose to argue the above paragraph, please view it as MY OPINION. Flames will be ignored.

As far as the libtard states, they have a long way to go before they're out from under the feral's thumb. Good luck with that (to them)...

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
05-03-2017 09:01 PM  14 months agoPost 12
ssmith512

rrKey Veteran

Indianapolis, IN USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

The "civil war" wasn't a civil war at all. The south had already seceded by democratic vote, and created an entirely new government. The rich north couldn't have that. They wanted (coveted) the South's textiles, tobacco and produce. Hence the war, where they stole them. Far from being a hero, Lincoln was the greatest mass murderer in American history, and the beginning of the end of the republic. I despise him.
I honestly have never been exposed this alternative viewpoint . Very interesting. I appreciate you sharing this. Now I have additional information from which to pull whilst forming my own opinion.

I must go ponder.......

Steve

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
05-03-2017 11:41 PM  14 months agoPost 13
Gearhead

rrMaster

Vt

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

The "civil war" wasn't a civil war at all.
edited

to look at it that way you are correct, it was a "take over",, but the South did want to keep their slaves and that was a big part of why the south wanted to split away,, in the end slavery was outlawed and that is what was needed to happen, to add it had to end sometime, because if it didn't sooner or later it would lead to other races being thrown into slavery too

Jim
Buzz Buzz Buzz

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
05-03-2017 11:49 PM  14 months agoPost 14
RM3

rrElite Veteran

Killeen, Texas - USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Slavery was a side issue (even to Lincoln)
and a ploy to get more free blacks to enlist... what better way to crush your opponent than to employ people that hate what they represent.

showing a preference will only get you into trouble, 90% of everything is crap...

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
05-04-2017 12:07 AM  14 months agoPost 15
wjvail

rrKey Veteran

Meridian, Mississippi

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

The "civil war" wasn't a civil war at all. The south had already seceded by democratic vote, and created an entirely new government. The rich north couldn't have that. They wanted (coveted) the South's textiles, tobacco and produce. Hence the war, where they stole them. Far from being a hero, Lincoln was the greatest mass murderer in American history, and the beginning of the end of the republic. I despise him.
I honestly have never been exposed this alternative viewpoint . Very interesting. I appreciate you sharing this. Now I have additional information from which to pull whilst forming my own opinion.
That's the "discussion" I referred to earlier. Depending on who you ask, Al Sharpton or historians, the civil war was fought for different reasons.

History will say that the North imposed (many) rules on the South that the South could not live with. Their response was fairly predictable. They said we will form our own country (CSA). They choose to succeed from the Union and set up their own government. Just as we are confederates in helicopters here on Runryder, 11 states states banded together as a confederation and formed their own country so as to oppose rules set fourth by a federal government.

What has caught my interest lately is the large, powerful, liberal states that lost the most recent presidential election seem to be adopting a similar strategy as the southern states of the 1860s. They seem to be banding together to appose the Federal government.

I wonder how this plays out?

"Well, Nothing bad can happen now."

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
05-04-2017 12:18 AM  14 months agoPost 16
Gearhead

rrMaster

Vt

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I wonder how this plays out?
me too, because I would think most people in those states would not want to fight it out with brother Americans with bullets,, I guess I'm saying that I just can not see it actually happening

Jim
Buzz Buzz Buzz

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
05-04-2017 01:14 AM  14 months agoPost 17
wjvail

rrKey Veteran

Meridian, Mississippi

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

because I would think most people in those states would not want to fight it out with brother Americans with bullets,, I guess I'm saying that I just can not see it actually happening
Agreed. I don't see a shooting war as a possibility for various reasons - not the least of which is that those most opposed to the current Federal government, outlawed guns (or bullets). Again, more irony. http://smartgunlaws.org/ammunition-...-in-california/

But more realistically, why fight a shooting war when you can simply tangle Federal law up in the courts? My guess is that Liberals would be content to have this tied up in court for 48 months.

Going on- the older I get, the more I realize the old adage "Follow the Money" makes sense in a variety of circumstances. Where is the money in a shooting war?

"Well, Nothing bad can happen now."

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
05-04-2017 02:01 AM  14 months agoPost 18
rcmiket

rrVeteran

El Paso,Texas

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

me too, because I would think most people in those states would not want to fight it out with brother Americans with bullets,, I guess I'm saying that I just can not see it actually happening
And I never though the losing side in a election would riot ,loot, protest (if you can call it that) and deny free speech to others all with the approval of those who ran and lost. But I was wrong.................................................................

Mike

"When Inverted down is up and up is expensive"

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
WATCH
 1 page 1032 views POST REPLY
HomeOff Topics News & Politics › No Free Speech At UC Berkeley?...THEN NO FEDERAL FUNDS
 Print TOPIC  Make Suggestion 

 3  Topic Subscribe

Monday, July 23 - 11:06 am - Copyright © 2000-2018 RunRyder   EMAILEnable Cookies

Login Here
 New Subscriptions 
 Buddies Online