-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
States and cities defy and disobey Trumps order!
- Thread starter Riders
- Start date
Your answer was an o;pinion and as i said, most people l disagree with your OPINION.
No it isn't.
Yes the did. Now do hPul Harvey bit and tell the rest of the story. You won't do that will you? I wonder why.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Based on what numbers?
FWIW, there are other programs that threaten to deny funds if lower level governments don't do as they're told. For instance, CMUs (large metro areas, basically) aren't eligible for grants for road projects unless they do a transportation master plan every 5 years.
There are far more cities that are not sanctuary cities, than those that are.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
You literally have not a single clue what you're talking about. A law that has funds attached is still a law that must be followed to at least fulfill the minimum requirement.
I very much understand it, but I think you "understand" the Bible pretty much as well as you "understand" the Constitution.Yes the did. Now do hPul Harvey bit and tell the rest of the story. You won't do that will you? I wonder why.
Why am I wasting my time? Ya, no more.
Show me that in the constitution.
If you really understood the Bible you would have told the compete story. O maybe you do understand it, and realize you shot yourself in the head by us that as an example for sanctuary cities today.
You wanted to show everyone that you are much smarter than I am, but you failed.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
It depends on how the original law was written, and sometimes there are "escape clauses" or time limitations that are attached. This is not just my opinion as there were a couple of constitutional lawyers recently on CNN that covered this, and they pointed out that very little federal money can be denied the states or local communities on the basis of unrelated issues. To try and do it otherwise usually leads to court cases with the burden of proof being on the fed.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Indeed. However I don't know if it is universally true that less people believe they shouldn't exist. And even if that were true the point I makes still stands.
You wouldn't believe it if I gave you hard facts. IMO, which all you have, is that your point does not stand.
McBell
Unbound
Except without your alleged facts, all you got is opinion...
Which puts you in the exact same boat you say he is in.
I nave said I have any facts. I said, Since there are far more cities that are not sanctuary cities, it seem logical they are in the minority.
McBell
Unbound
So what "hard facts" were you talking about in post #52?
I haven't said I have any hard facts. That there are far more none sanctuary cities, than are, speaks for itself.
McBell
Unbound
You ain't to good at back peddling, are you?
YOUR post:
What facts are you talking about in the above quoted post?
The FACT that there are far more non-sanctuary cities than there are sanctuary cities. That is a hard fact and the only one I have mentioned.
buddhist
Well-Known Member
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
I generally accept hard facts. It is one of the few forms of currency I accept. Give it a go.