I'm sporadic when it comes to rap. Some late 80s/early 90s, some weird shit I stumble across etc

Also never cared about Jay Z

I’ve basically completely stopped listening to it the past couple years

Every so often I'll go through the Nujabes playlist, or listen to Waddy, Pharcyde etc

A very reliable source of mine that I made up, told me that Jay z's thoughts at that time were "Thank God you liked dick 50 years ago"

doesn't surprise me, if he's half as crazy as Beyonce i'm amazed he stopped at crying

I don't listen to rap anymore. I'm just going off my past affinity

I'm even getting less and less into rock. I just put on the classical station in the car, it's one of the few things that doesn't annoy me on the radio lol

https://www.gofundme.com/buckles-for-brits
I love "belt buckles."

I need a belt buckle im not a brit im scottish

... PM me, Scotts are where this started...

I dont listen to radio unless it's for news tbh

does radio still exist?

Online yeah :^)

This sounds interesting...
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/may/16/texas-asserts-sovereign-immunity-against-congress/?

I approve of what he is doing, but I'm pretty sure that the forcible readmission of Texas into the union after the civil war demonstrates that the agreement by which Texas joined the union was fraud.

“'Congress doesn’t get to do oversight over states — period. Nor can they compel action by state officers'”
Doesn't seem to be specific to Texas

Yeah, but he does mention that Texas joined the US as a sovereign nation as part of the justification of that.

Wasn't the US (and the whole concept of federalism) the idea that each state was a sovereign power? Strikes me as a return to the Old Ways and I'd be supportive of that

I'm rereading it now to find a mention of a specific mention of Texas' nationhood

When I first read it I thought the sovereign part was a reference to Texas being a country at one point, but it seems to apply to all states

@wolfman1911 @C1PHER Joining the US means each state gives up sovereignty, you can't have both.

States can't have sovereignty, only countries can.

Oh, my bad then, I kinda skimmed the article.

You understand some of it right, Texas may have wanted to keep its (i've not looked into it a lot), but that doesn't mean it still has it.

states have as much sovereignty as isn't explicitly given to the federal government via the constitution

that might have been a word salad just now, but oh well

Which at this point is basically none.

States control what happens inside them, but if the nation has rules that overrule anything. They have to follow them (unless they conflict with the constitution or some other exemptions).

@C1PHER
*"Wasn't the US (and the whole concept of federalism) the idea that each state was a sovereign power?"*
**NO DAMN IT!** The intention was the feds we're one power, the states were another power separate and equal.

MC, I don't think what I said contradicts that

point being, the federal government wasn't meant to rule over all the states like it tends to do now

It's 6 years old, and I haven't had time to read the whole thing to see if it is relevant, but on the off chance anyone is interested I found this
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30315.pdf

Forget that..... I hate reading.

heh

fair, it is 20 some pages long]

I doubt I'll get through it, but I'll bookmark it

Bro Imma read

its not like I have anything better to do

The constitution of the country limits its power and can only be expanded by the process documented in the constitution. Same process by state

So for instance in AZ they we voted to make services not prone to sales tax. The state can only change that via citizenry vote. Their sovereignty cannot override that (unless the voters are cowards and don't push back on it when attempted. Similar to the federal government, it expands power all the time, but only because the senate doesn't push back. And the senate doesn't push back because senators no longer represent the states soverienty. 17th ammendment should be abolished