Seriously?

[2001400ex]

I'm a pastafarian. I would like my personal pirate officiant present if I were to be executed.

I’m rooting for you.

Seriously though, I mean, there's better hills to be making a fight on right?

The issue is that I'm sure they probably have limited personnel that attend to the "spiritual needs" of the captive population. Additionally, I'm sure there are procedures, laws, or liabilities involved around who is and isn't allowed in the room. Maybe(and this is speculation) they didn't feel like bending the rules for a child killer and they additionally were never going to hire an Imam full-time just to allow him to be there within the rules.

What do you want this to be? An issue of Christianinty's double standards? There are bigger better examples.

You want to pick a fight over the separation of church and state? Bigger fish to fry. Try school prayer instead.

The persecution of Muslim minorities? There's probably grosser examples of more deserving figures to be made light of.

TLDR, this is a dumb talking point.

This is a Constitutional issue. If he was entitled to the same treatment as a Christian, it’s irrelevant how important the issue is to you.

You've gotta be living in such a bubble to not realize that people's constitutional rights are violated on a regular basis. This is small potatoes.

But sure, let's hurt the cause for that by trying to hold up a child killer as a martyr.

For the record, I'm 110% behind protecting people's constitutional rights and a stricter interpretation of the constitution. I suggest we start with the first and second [/b]as those are foundational to the others. I'd also suggest a serious revamping of the 4th.

Perfect fully automatic weapons for all? With no background checks or waiting period. You in?

 

[UW_Doog_Bot]

I'm a pastafarian. I would like my personal pirate officiant present if I were to be executed.

I’m rooting for you.

Seriously though, I mean, there's better hills to be making a fight on right?

The issue is that I'm sure they probably have limited personnel that attend to the "spiritual needs" of the captive population. Additionally, I'm sure there are procedures, laws, or liabilities involved around who is and isn't allowed in the room. Maybe(and this is speculation) they didn't feel like bending the rules for a child killer and they additionally were never going to hire an Imam full-time just to allow him to be there within the rules.

What do you want this to be? An issue of Christianinty's double standards? There are bigger better examples.

You want to pick a fight over the separation of church and state? Bigger fish to fry. Try school prayer instead.

The persecution of Muslim minorities? There's probably grosser examples of more deserving figures to be made light of.

TLDR, this is a dumb talking point.

This is a Constitutional issue. If he was entitled to the same treatment as a Christian, it’s irrelevant how important the issue is to you.

You've gotta be living in such a bubble to not realize that people's constitutional rights are violated on a regular basis. This is small potatoes.

But sure, let's hurt the cause for that by trying to hold up a child killer as a martyr.

For the record, I'm 110% behind protecting people's constitutional rights and a stricter interpretation of the constitution. I suggest we start with the first and second [/b]as those are foundational to the others. I'd also suggest a serious revamping of the 4th.

Perfect fully automatic weapons for all[/b]? With no background checks or waiting period. You in?

Sounds like socialism.

 

[2001400ex]

I'm a pastafarian. I would like my personal pirate officiant present if I were to be executed.

I’m rooting for you.

Seriously though, I mean, there's better hills to be making a fight on right?

The issue is that I'm sure they probably have limited personnel that attend to the "spiritual needs" of the captive population. Additionally, I'm sure there are procedures, laws, or liabilities involved around who is and isn't allowed in the room. Maybe(and this is speculation) they didn't feel like bending the rules for a child killer and they additionally were never going to hire an Imam full-time just to allow him to be there within the rules.

What do you want this to be? An issue of Christianinty's double standards? There are bigger better examples.

You want to pick a fight over the separation of church and state? Bigger fish to fry. Try school prayer instead.

The persecution of Muslim minorities? There's probably grosser examples of more deserving figures to be made light of.

TLDR, this is a dumb talking point.

This is a Constitutional issue. If he was entitled to the same treatment as a Christian, it’s irrelevant how important the issue is to you.

You've gotta be living in such a bubble to not realize that people's constitutional rights are violated on a regular basis. This is small potatoes.

But sure, let's hurt the cause for that by trying to hold up a child killer as a martyr.

For the record, I'm 110% behind protecting people's constitutional rights and a stricter interpretation of the constitution. I suggest we start with the first and second [/b]as those are foundational to the others. I'd also suggest a serious revamping of the 4th.

Perfect fully automatic weapons for all[/b]? With no background checks or waiting period. You in?

Sounds like socialism.

You know what I meant. But I'll rephrase. No more fully Auto registration or restrictions. No background checks or waiting period. You in?

 

[RaceBannon]

Fact: he couldn’t have his clergyman in the room because he was not a Christian.

No because he wasn't a state employee. Do you think lying helps your case O'Keefed?

Don’t beg the question, blob. Not hard to accommodate this. State policy doesn’t override the Constitution.

Oh really

And this is the big issue for you on that subject

JFC

It’s just such an obvious call. Again, you could just take the position that no clergy enter the room.

I don't give a shit

Sanctuary cities are a constitutional issue of far more importance

Stay in the weeds

He's dead. Get over it.

 

[2001400ex]

Fact: he couldn’t have his clergyman in the room because he was not a Christian.

No because he wasn't a state employee. Do you think lying helps your case O'Keefed?

Don’t beg the question, blob. Not hard to accommodate this. State policy doesn’t override the Constitution.

Oh really

And this is the big issue for you on that subject

JFC

It’s just such an obvious call. Again, you could just take the position that no clergy enter the room.

I don't give a shit

Sanctuary cities are a constitutional issue of far more importance

Stay in the weeds

He's dead. Get over it.

And Hillary lost but you aren't over that yet.

 

[Sledog]

I'm a pastafarian. I would like my personal pirate officiant present if I were to be executed.

I'll chip in for their fee!

 

[HHusky]

Fact: he couldn’t have his clergyman in the room because he was not a Christian.

No because he wasn't a state employee. Do you think lying helps your case O'Keefed?

Don’t beg the question, blob. Not hard to accommodate this. State policy doesn’t override the Constitution.

Oh really

And this is the big issue for you on that subject

JFC

It’s just such an obvious call. Again, you could just take the position that no clergy enter the room.

I don't give a shit

Sanctuary cities are a constitutional issue of far more importance

Stay in the weeds

He's dead. Get over it.

You don’t give a shit. Yet here you are.

 

[RaceBannon]

He's still dead

 

[CirrhosisDawg]

Fact: he couldn’t have his clergyman in the room because he was not a Christian.

No because he wasn't a state employee. Do you think lying helps your case O'Keefed?

Don’t beg the question, blob. Not hard to accommodate this. State policy doesn’t override the Constitution.

Oh really

And this is the big issue for you on that subject

JFC

It’s just such an obvious call. Again, you could just take the position that no clergy enter the room.

I don't give a shit

Sanctuary cities are a constitutional issue of far more importance

Stay in the weeds

He's dead. Get over it.

Constitutional issue? It’s already been litigated and trump lost.

California is a sanctuary state. LA and many other CA cities are sanctuary cities. Trump can fuck himself.

 

[SFGbob]

Fact: he couldn’t have his clergyman in the room because he was not a Christian.

No because he wasn't a state employee. Do you think lying helps your case O'Keefed?

Don’t beg the question, blob. Not hard to accommodate this. State policy doesn’t override the Constitution.

Oh really

And this is the big issue for you on that subject

JFC

It’s just such an obvious call. Again, you could just take the position that no clergy enter the room.

I don't give a shit

Sanctuary cities are a constitutional issue of far more importance

Stay in the weeds

He's dead. Get over it.

Constitutional issue? It’s already been litigated and trump lost.

California is a sanctuary state. LA and many other CA cities are sanctuary cities. Trump can fuck himself.

The SC handed down a decision on Sanctuary cities? Got a link Kunt?

Rats are just doing what they've always done. Standing in the school house doorways ignoring federal laws.

 

[CirrhosisDawg]

Fact: he couldn’t have his clergyman in the room because he was not a Christian.

No because he wasn't a state employee. Do you think lying helps your case O'Keefed?

Don’t beg the question, blob. Not hard to accommodate this. State policy doesn’t override the Constitution.

Oh really

And this is the big issue for you on that subject

JFC

It’s just such an obvious call. Again, you could just take the position that no clergy enter the room.

I don't give a shit

Sanctuary cities are a constitutional issue of far more importance

Stay in the weeds

He's dead. Get over it.

Constitutional issue? It’s already been litigated and trump lost.

California is a sanctuary state. LA and many other CA cities are sanctuary cities. Trump can fuck himself.

The SC handed down a decision on Sanctuary cities? Got a link Kunt?

Rats are just doing what they've always done. Standing in the school house doorways ignoring federal laws.

Show me the appeal to the SC of trump’s loss imbecile. I am sure it’s in the docket. Right? Explain your constitutional theory that locals have to enforce federal law. Answer the question GayBob!

 

[SFGbob]

Locals can't defy Federal law. But you Rats have a long history of succession and standing in school house doorways in defiance of Federal law.

 

[CirrhosisDawg]

Locals can't defy Federal law. But you Rats have a long history of succession and standing in school house doorways in defiance of Federal law.

What federal law is being defied GayBob? Where’s the scotus appeal GayBob?
California is a sanctuary state and there’s nothing you or trump can do about it. Suck it GayBob.

 

[SFGbob]

Dumb fuck just claimed that Trump was trying to make state officials enforce Federal law and then sticks his head up his ass and ask what Federal law is being defied.

Stick to tonguing Hondo's ass dude, you're out of your league on most other topics.

 

[CirrhosisDawg]

Dumb fuck just claimed that Trump was trying to make state officials enforce Federal law and then sticks his head up his ass and ask what Federal law is being defied.

Stick to tonguing Hondo's ass dude, you're out of your league on most other topics.

So sanctuary states and cities are completely legal. They exclusively enforce local law. Trump lost as badly on this issue in the courts as you are doing right now.

 

[CirrhosisDawg]

Dumb fuck just claimed that Trump was trying to make state officials enforce Federal law and then sticks his head up his ass and ask what Federal law is being defied.

Stick to tonguing Hondo's ass dude, you're out of your league on most other topics.

You should appeal this constitutional issue to scotus.

 

[Pitchfork51]

Sanctuary cities and states should be nuked.

 

[CirrhosisDawg]

Sanctuary cities and states should be nuked.

Feds should make and enforce federal law.
Immigration is entirely a federal responsibility.
California DOJ, DAs, sheriffs and cops enforce local laws. The state does not have an immigration policy nor does it defy federal law.

Fat boy is supposed to enforce federal law. He won’t get one local jail cell or cop for his idiocy. It’s called federalism.

Have you trumptards stopped to consider why fat boy hasnt appealed his sanctuary law court losses?

 

[SFGbob]

Sanctuary cities and states should be nuked.

Feds should make and enforce federal law.
Immigration is entirely a federal responsibility.
California DOJ, DAs, sheriffs and cops enforce local laws. The state does not have an immigration policy nor does it defy federal law.

Fat boy is supposed to enforce federal law. He won’t get one local jail cell or cop for his idiocy. It’s called federalism.

Have you trumptards stopped to consider why fat boy hasnt appealed his sanctuary law court losses?

I believe this was the exact same argument that was used by the people who wanted to keep the "coloreds" out of their kids' schools.

 

[CirrhosisDawg]

Sanctuary cities and states should be nuked.

Feds should make and enforce federal law.
Immigration is entirely a federal responsibility.
California DOJ, DAs, sheriffs and cops enforce local laws. The state does not have an immigration policy nor does it defy federal law.

Fat boy is supposed to enforce federal law. He won’t get one local jail cell or cop for his idiocy. It’s called federalism.

Have you trumptards stopped to consider why fat boy hasnt appealed his sanctuary law court losses?

I believe this was the exact same argument that was used by the people who wanted to keep the "coloreds" out of their kids' schools.

Exact same argument? To an imbecile.

Denying access to public schools is unconstitutional.

Telling trump to fuck off and enforce, staff and pay for his own MAGAtry is not unconstitutional. It’s not illegal. Immigration is not California’s responsibly you retard and we won’t pay a dime or lift a finger while trump is in office to promote this shitshow.

Why won’t fat boy appeal his sanctuary law court losses GayBob? Why won’t you answer the question?