Virginia Tech fans discussing politics, religion, and football
https://uwsboard.com/
IP doesn't believe in a country of laws. Hopefully his profession doesn't rely on them...Jack Galt wrote:How so? He's the AG, and he is enforcing the law. What is the problem? What are the multiple layers of stupidity?
I would argue it’s rather apparent all Democrats, like ip, don’t believe in the rule of law.USN_Hokie wrote:IP doesn't believe in a country of laws. Hopefully his profession doesn't rely on them...Jack Galt wrote:How so? He's the AG, and he is enforcing the law. What is the problem? What are the multiple layers of stupidity?
I’ll start with - He’s leaving the ultimate decision up to be local atty’s - most of whom haven’t been appointed. There are billions of dollars at issue here.Jack Galt wrote:How so? He's the AG, and he is enforcing the law. What is the problem? What are the multiple layers of stupidity?
https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-roo ... rs-laptop/(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch revealed today that there are at least 18 classified emails in the 798 documents recently produced by the State Department from the FBI’s investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s elicit email system. The emails were found on the laptop of Anthony Weiner, who is the estranged husband of former Clinton aide Huma Abedin.
So how is Sessions going to enforce the law?USN_Hokie wrote:IP doesn't believe in a country of laws. Hopefully his profession doesn't rely on them...Jack Galt wrote:How so? He's the AG, and he is enforcing the law. What is the problem? What are the multiple layers of stupidity?
Ok. So why haven't they been appointed? Or is the problem that they were elected, not appointed?ip_law-hokie wrote:I’ll start with - He’s leaving the ultimate decision up to be local atty’s - most of whom haven’t been appointed. There are billions of dollars at issue here.Jack Galt wrote:How so? He's the AG, and he is enforcing the law. What is the problem? What are the multiple layers of stupidity?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That’s a separate issue.Jack Galt wrote:Ok. So why haven't they been appointed? Or is the problem that they were elected, not appointed?ip_law-hokie wrote:I’ll start with - He’s leaving the ultimate decision up to be local atty’s - most of whom haven’t been appointed. There are billions of dollars at issue here.Jack Galt wrote:How so? He's the AG, and he is enforcing the law. What is the problem? What are the multiple layers of stupidity?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm actually interested in your point of view, but you are being evasive giving an answer.
Mark me down as not caring what you think.ip_law-hokie wrote:That’s a separate issue.Jack Galt wrote:Ok. So why haven't they been appointed? Or is the problem that they were elected, not appointed?ip_law-hokie wrote:I’ll start with - He’s leaving the ultimate decision up to be local atty’s - most of whom haven’t been appointed. There are billions of dollars at issue here.Jack Galt wrote:How so? He's the AG, and he is enforcing the law. What is the problem? What are the multiple layers of stupidity?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm actually interested in your point of view, but you are being evasive giving an answer.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Then your post is a bit odd, wouldn’t you say?awesome guy wrote:Mark me down as not caring what you think.ip_law-hokie wrote:That’s a separate issue.Jack Galt wrote:Ok. So why haven't they been appointed? Or is the problem that they were elected, not appointed?ip_law-hokie wrote:I’ll start with - He’s leaving the ultimate decision up to be local atty’s - most of whom haven’t been appointed. There are billions of dollars at issue here.Jack Galt wrote:How so? He's the AG, and he is enforcing the law. What is the problem? What are the multiple layers of stupidity?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm actually interested in your point of view, but you are being evasive giving an answer.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I like stabbing poo with a stickip_law-hokie wrote:Then your post is a bit odd, wouldn’t you say?awesome guy wrote:Mark me down as not caring what you think.ip_law-hokie wrote:That’s a separate issue.Jack Galt wrote:Ok. So why haven't they been appointed? Or is the problem that they were elected, not appointed?ip_law-hokie wrote:I’ll start with - He’s leaving the ultimate decision up to be local atty’s - most of whom haven’t been appointed. There are billions of dollars at issue here.Jack Galt wrote:How so? He's the AG, and he is enforcing the law. What is the problem? What are the multiple layers of stupidity?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm actually interested in your point of view, but you are being evasive giving an answer.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I dunno how ip will ever recover from that.awesome guy wrote:Mark me down as not caring what you think.ip_law-hokie wrote:That’s a separate issue.Jack Galt wrote:Ok. So why haven't they been appointed? Or is the problem that they were elected, not appointed?ip_law-hokie wrote:I’ll start with - He’s leaving the ultimate decision up to be local atty’s - most of whom haven’t been appointed. There are billions of dollars at issue here.Jack Galt wrote:How so? He's the AG, and he is enforcing the law. What is the problem? What are the multiple layers of stupidity?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm actually interested in your point of view, but you are being evasive giving an answer.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Danville.awesome guy wrote:I like stabbing poo with a stickip_law-hokie wrote:Then your post is a bit odd, wouldn’t you say?awesome guy wrote:Mark me down as not caring what you think.ip_law-hokie wrote:That’s a separate issue.Jack Galt wrote:Ok. So why haven't they been appointed? Or is the problem that they were elected, not appointed?ip_law-hokie wrote: I’ll start with - He’s leaving the ultimate decision up to be local atty’s - most of whom haven’t been appointed. There are billions of dollars at issue here.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm actually interested in your point of view, but you are being evasive giving an answer.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Manchester provides great turdsip_law-hokie wrote:Danville.awesome guy wrote:I like stabbing poo with a stickip_law-hokie wrote:Then your post is a bit odd, wouldn’t you say?awesome guy wrote:Mark me down as not caring what you think.ip_law-hokie wrote:That’s a separate issue.Jack Galt wrote: Ok. So why haven't they been appointed? Or is the problem that they were elected, not appointed?
I'm actually interested in your point of view, but you are being evasive giving an answer.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
FTFYnolanvt wrote:I dunno.awesome guy wrote:Mark me down as not caring what you think.ip_law-hokie wrote:That’s a separate issue.Jack Galt wrote:Ok. So why haven't they been appointed? Or is the problem that they were elected, not appointed?ip_law-hokie wrote:I’ll start with - He’s leaving the ultimate decision up to be local atty’s - most of whom haven’t been appointed. There are billions of dollars at issue here.Jack Galt wrote:How so? He's the AG, and he is enforcing the law. What is the problem? What are the multiple layers of stupidity?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm actually interested in your point of view, but you are being evasive giving an answer.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thanks for engaging in a discussion. It's been thrilling as always.ip_law-hokie wrote:That’s a separate issue.Jack Galt wrote:Ok. So why haven't they been appointed? Or is the problem that they were elected, not appointed?ip_law-hokie wrote:I’ll start with - He’s leaving the ultimate decision up to be local atty’s - most of whom haven’t been appointed. There are billions of dollars at issue here.Jack Galt wrote:How so? He's the AG, and he is enforcing the law. What is the problem? What are the multiple layers of stupidity?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm actually interested in your point of view, but you are being evasive giving an answer.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
OK, but that’s on you. Sessions knew there were unfilled positions when he made the policy. And somw of these positions were unfilled because Trump dismissed very capable attorneys from positions that were not political in the past.Jack Galt wrote:Thanks for engaging in a discussion. It's been thrilling as always.ip_law-hokie wrote:That’s a separate issue.Jack Galt wrote:Ok. So why haven't they been appointed? Or is the problem that they were elected, not appointed?ip_law-hokie wrote:I’ll start with - He’s leaving the ultimate decision up to be local atty’s - most of whom haven’t been appointed. There are billions of dollars at issue here.Jack Galt wrote:How so? He's the AG, and he is enforcing the law. What is the problem? What are the multiple layers of stupidity?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm actually interested in your point of view, but you are being evasive giving an answer.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'll let you get back to having pissing contests with other posters.
That's a fine stance, but if that's the way it's going to be, then overturn the few laws first.BG Hokie wrote:I'd rather leave this issue to the states. Donald Trump said the same in 2016. Why you guys hate Donald Trump and Federalism? I thought the Colorado Republican, Cory Gardner has a respectable stance on the issue. He didn't support it initially but respects that the will of the voters have made it so and is now seeking to protect his constituency. It would be nice if big gov could butt their way out.
Agree. I think it should be up to the states, but overturn the laws.HokieFanDC wrote:That's a fine stance, but if that's the way it's going to be, then overturn the few laws first.BG Hokie wrote:I'd rather leave this issue to the states. Donald Trump said the same in 2016. Why you guys hate Donald Trump and Federalism? I thought the Colorado Republican, Cory Gardner has a respectable stance on the issue. He didn't support it initially but respects that the will of the voters have made it so and is now seeking to protect his constituency. It would be nice if big gov could butt their way out.
This is a pretty typical reaction (not yours, BG, but in general). The people who don't agree with legalization of pot think it should be a fed decision. People who agree with it, think it should be a state decision.
I’d be interested to know what Sessions’ end game is here. California Cannabis sales are expected to be 5 billion dollars next year. Does he think he can put that cat back in the bag?HokieFanDC wrote:That's a fine stance, but if that's the way it's going to be, then overturn the few laws first.BG Hokie wrote:I'd rather leave this issue to the states. Donald Trump said the same in 2016. Why you guys hate Donald Trump and Federalism? I thought the Colorado Republican, Cory Gardner has a respectable stance on the issue. He didn't support it initially but respects that the will of the voters have made it so and is now seeking to protect his constituency. It would be nice if big gov could butt their way out.
This is a pretty typical reaction (not yours, BG, but in general). The people who don't agree with legalization of pot think it should be a fed decision. People who agree with it, think it should be a state decision.
Of all the things on the AG’s plate... this is not an urgency.ip_law-hokie wrote:Multiple layers of stupidity
https://apple.news/AaTm39YJnTcCZxSoW96h9Ng
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
ip_law-hokie wrote:I’d be interested to know what Sessions’ end game is here. California Cannabis sales are expected to be 5 billion dollars next year. Does he think he can put that cat back in the bag?HokieFanDC wrote:That's a fine stance, but if that's the way it's going to be, then overturn the few laws first.BG Hokie wrote:I'd rather leave this issue to the states. Donald Trump said the same in 2016. Why you guys hate Donald Trump and Federalism? I thought the Colorado Republican, Cory Gardner has a respectable stance on the issue. He didn't support it initially but respects that the will of the voters have made it so and is now seeking to protect his constituency. It would be nice if big gov could butt their way out.
This is a pretty typical reaction (not yours, BG, but in general). The people who don't agree with legalization of pot think it should be a fed decision. People who agree with it, think it should be a state decision.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There are ways to conduct pissing contests without sacrificing tax revenues and rewarding black marketeers.Mcl3 Hokie wrote:You don’t think this is political payback for Obama’s DOJ taking AZ states rights away when it came to immigration? I think it’s a perfect play to show the absurdity of the DOJ trampling AZ’s rights.
ip_law-hokie wrote:I’d be interested to know what Sessions’ end game is here. California Cannabis sales are expected to be 5 billion dollars next year. Does he think he can put that cat back in the bag?HokieFanDC wrote:That's a fine stance, but if that's the way it's going to be, then overturn the few laws first.BG Hokie wrote:I'd rather leave this issue to the states. Donald Trump said the same in 2016. Why you guys hate Donald Trump and Federalism? I thought the Colorado Republican, Cory Gardner has a respectable stance on the issue. He didn't support it initially but respects that the will of the voters have made it so and is now seeking to protect his constituency. It would be nice if big gov could butt their way out.
This is a pretty typical reaction (not yours, BG, but in general). The people who don't agree with legalization of pot think it should be a fed decision. People who agree with it, think it should be a state decision.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk