• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Holder Hasn't Read AZ Law He Criticized

first, it was, ksm will never be released, essentially preconvting, just like nixon did manson

'Heads I Win, Tails You Lose': In 9/11 Case, KSM Won't Walk Free Even If Found Not Guilty - Declassified Blog - Newsweek.com

then, it's "failure is not an option"

pressed today in house judiciary the addled ag attempted to clear things up:

“Maybe I can clear this up once and for all,” Holder said. “When I said failure is not an option, that was not a prediction about the course of the trial. It was from my perspective an exhortation [in] the way in which a coach talks to his players and tells them, you guys got to go out there and win this game, because failure is not an option. And that's what I was saying.”
Click to expand...

it's no PREDICTION

no, he's VINCE LOMBARDI!

"what the HELL's going on out there, everybody grabbin, grabbin!"

LOL!

what a doofus
 
hazlnut said:
Is there an echo in here??:shock:

yes. I got it. We got it. We got that you think that means something....
Click to expand...

Then just admit you once again didn't check your facts and mouthed off your partisan dribble before you verified anything you were claiming.

Let me tell you a secret....

The managing partner of a big New York law firm doesn't read everything coming out of the San Jose office...
Click to expand...

Let me tell you a little secret. If he is going to go on television and hasn't read a 10 page document he is going to criticize he's a moron who should never have become a managing partner.

It's a STATE LAW. There MAY BE a federal issue. He has PEOPLE (other Lawyer) looking into it.
Click to expand...

10 pages hazlnut.

10 pages. Thats it. And he was stupid enough to criticize it before he actually knew the facts.

Is that where you get it from?

You know, it's difficult to have conversation with you as you don't really understand what an AJ does.... or a President....
Click to expand...

I understand common sense. Perhaps you should look into it. If you are going to criticize a law, how about reading it first? Novel approach huh.

Quit while you're behind Hazel. Its not going to get any easier.
 
Last edited:
he goes TODAY before THE HOUSE and he has his people LOOKING INTO IT!

LOL!
 
Aunt Spiker said:
I feel like a broken record:

They never read ANY bill - no matter WHAT. Bill reading is not in their repertoire. They have attendees and other staff who read portions, summarize, and then report.
Click to expand...

Call me traditional, but maybe that's the problem. They need to read it for themselves.
 
Does anybody think that it's important to read this section before deciding whether the part that people believe legalizes racial profiling is constitutional?

On a finding of a violation of subsection A of this section:
1. For a first violation, as described in paragraph 3 of this subsection, the court shall:
(a) Order the employer to terminate the employment of all unauthorized aliens.
(b) Order the employer to be subject to a five year probationary period for the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work. During the probationary period the employer shall file quarterly reports in the form provided in section 23-722.01 with the county attorney of each new employee who is hired by the employer at the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work.
(c) Order the appropriate agencies to suspend all licenses described in subdivision (d) of this paragraph that are held by the employer for a minimum of ten days. The court shall base its decision on the length of the suspension under this subdivision on any evidence or information submitted to it during the action for a violation of this subsection and shall consider the following factors, if relevant:
Click to expand...

How about this?

The attorney general shall maintain copies of court orders that are 40 received pursuant to subsection F of this section and shall maintain a 41 database of the employers and business locations that have a first violation 42 of subsection A of this section and make the court orders available on the 43 attorney general's website.
Click to expand...

This part?

14 1. "Economic development incentive" means any grant, loan or 15 performance-based incentive from any government entity that is awarded after 16 September 30, 2008. Economic development incentive does not include any tax 17 provision under title 42 or 43.
18 2. "Government entity" means this state and any political subdivision 19 of this state that receives and uses tax revenues. 20 C. Every three months the attorney general shall request from the 21 United States department of homeland security a list of employers from this 22 state that are registered with the e-verify program. On receipt of the list 23 of employers, the attorney general shall make the list available on the 24 attorney general's website.
Click to expand...

This?

THE GANG AND IMMIGRATION INTELLIGENCE TEAM ENFORCEMENT MISSION FUND IS ESTABLISHED CONSISTING OF MONIES DEPOSITED PURSUANT TO SECTION 11-1051 AND MONIES APPROPRIATED BY THE LEGISLATURE. THE DEPARTMENT SHALL ADMINISTER THE FUND. MONIES IN THE FUND ARE SUBJECT TO LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATION AND SHALL BE USED FOR GANG AND IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT AND FOR COUNTY JAIL REIMBURSEMENT COSTS RELATING TO ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.
Sec. 11. Severability, implementation and construction
A. If a provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of the act that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this act are severable.
Click to expand...

Surely reading this part would change Holder's mind

IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER PENALTY PRESCRIBED BY LAW, THE COURT SHALL ORDER THE PERSON TO PAY JAIL COSTS AND AN ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT IN THE FOLLOWING AMOUNTS:
1. AT LEAST FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS FOR A FIRST VIOLATION.
2. TWICE THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED IN PARAGRAPH 1 OF THIS SUBSECTION IF THE PERSON WAS PREVIOUSLY SUBJECT TO AN ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO THIS SUBSECTION. E. A COURT SHALL COLLECT THE ASSESSMENTS PRESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION D OF THIS SECTION AND REMIT THE ASSESSMENTS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, WHICH SHALL ESTABLISH A SPECIAL SUBACCOUNT FOR THE MONIES IN THE ACCOUNT ESTABLISHED FOR THE GANG AND IMMIGRATION INTELLIGENCE TEAM ENFORCEMENT MISSION APPROPRIATION. MONIES IN THE SPECIAL SUBACCOUNT ARE SUBJECT TO LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATION FOR DISTRIBUTION FOR GANG AND IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT AND FOR COUNTY JAIL REIMBURSEMENT COSTS RELATING TO ILLEGAL
IMMIGRATION.
Click to expand...

Or maybe it's 15 pages of completely mundane legislation and a half a sentence that can be construed as unconstitutional
 
Kernel Sanders said:
I don't have to slog through hundreds and hundreds of pages to know that the healthcare reform bill was crap. The contents of the controversial parts of the law are well known, and it is completely reasonable to form an opinion without sitting down and reading the text, as the portions that people feel strongly about are national news. Add in the fact that the uproar over the AZ law centered around a single phrase, which was widely printed, and I don't think it's wrong for Holder to criticize the bill without reading through the 9 1/2 pages of mundane, noncontroversial text that surrounded it.

Does his not having read the following paragraph really have an impact on the validity of his opinon?



Is there any section of the law that you believe would have impacted his opinion had he read it? I'd love to see a quote
Click to expand...

The "controversial" parts of the bill were heavily misrepresented or taken out of context by the media and liberal special interests.

There is nothing "controversial" about this law; it's simply the state enforcement of preexisting Federal law. Anyone who thinks there is reason for an "uproar" doesn't know how to read, or, in Holder's case, hasn't read it at all.

He goofed up. He should have taken an hour to read the ****ing thing, especially when one considers the significance of the national dialog currently taking place in regards to this bill.

Ten freaking pages. Took me a little over an hour to read it. If he's going to speak authoritatively about a bill, he ought to read it. All these government morons ought to read the bills they support or denounce; I don't care how "busy" they are with trying to get donations or rubbing elbows with special interests. Do your ****ing jobs.
 
texmaster said:
Then just admit you once again didn't check your facts and mouthed off your partisan dribble before you verified anything you were claiming.
Click to expand...

How about you reread the thread and show me where I said he read it.

You're the one who put a nice hyper-spin on the story...



Let me tell you a little secret. If he is going to go on television and hasn't read a 10 page document he is going to criticize he's a moron who should never have become a managing partner.
Click to expand...

He was very specific in what he said--based on his intial understanding of the STATE law....he found it troubling... a bit of political posturing.

Spin little man, keep spinning...



10 pages hazlnut.

10 pages. Thats it. And he was stupid enough to criticize it before he actually knew the facts.

Is that where you get it from?
Click to expand...


Criticize??? Try again. Try real hard to actually read and understand what he said...what little he said about the STATE law...

The STATE law that's only on his radar in that it's an election year and he has to do a little posturing.... Jeez, please tell us you're not that thick.



I understand common sense. Perhaps you should look into it. If you are going to criticize a law, how about reading it first? Novel approach huh.
Click to expand...

He said he found it troubling.... very political answer. Move on and stop the moronic spin.

Quit while you're behind Hazel. Its not going to get any easier.
Click to expand...

I'm so far a head of you, text, it's not even funny. But you keep spinning away, and serving your masters...
 
racial profiling...

just a little posturing

in an election year

LOL!
 
texmaster said:
This guy has got to be the most incompetent AG in our nation's history.

He has been openly discussing taking legal action against a law he has never read.

You don't get any worse.
Click to expand...

Holder needs to be told to leave Miranda alone. That law keeps dishonest cops in check. If he doesn't like it, he can resign and go **** his mom.
 
Kernel Sanders said:
Or maybe it's 15 pages of completely mundane legislation and a half a sentence that can be construed as unconstitutional
Click to expand...

if you don't review you can't construe
 
hazlnut said:
The STATE law that's only on his radar in that it's an election year and he has to do a little posturing....
Click to expand...
Why would he posture? His position is appointed, not elected.
Just curious.
 
hazlnut said:
How about you reread the thread and show me where I said he read it.

You're the one who put a nice hyper-spin on the story...
Click to expand...

You are really taking the fun out of it Hazel.

I said:

He has been openly discussing taking legal action against a law he has never read.
Click to expand...

You replied with:

Incorrect. False. More b.s. spin
Click to expand...

You've been obliterated yet again. I can't believe you pretended to claim you never claimed he read it when you claimed I made it up that he had not read it.

But go ahead and keep digging that hole. I love a show after dinner.

He was very specific in what he said--based on his intial understanding of the STATE law....he found it troubling... a bit of political posturing.

Spin little man, keep spinning...
Click to expand...

No spin here little buddy. He passed judgment on a law that he admitted he has never read. No matter how many times you use the word "spin" you will never spin your way out of that one.

Criticize??? Try again. Try real hard to actually read and understand what he said...what little he said about the STATE law...

The STATE law that's only on his radar in that it's an election year and he has to do a little posturing.... Jeez, please tell us you're not that thick.
Click to expand...

Wow. This is worse than watching a train wreak.

"We are considering all of our options. One possibility is filing a lawsuit," Holder told NBC's "Meet the Press." Possible grounds for the lawsuit would be whether the Arizona law could lead to civil rights violations, he said.


Holder told ABC's "This Week" program that one concern about the Arizona law is that "you'll end up in a situation where people are racially profiled, and that could lead to a wedge drawn between certain communities and law enforcement, which leads to the problem of people in those communities not willing to interact with people in law enforcement, not willing to share information, not willing to be witnesses where law enforcement needs them."

Holder: Feds may sue over Arizona immigration law - CNN.com

He sure says quite a bit about a law he never read.

Of course if he actually read the law he would have found it says specifically you cannot racially profile. But then again, he follows your logic. Comment first, check facts later.

He said he found it troubling.... very political answer. Move on and stop the moronic spin.
Click to expand...

Read his quotes above. As usual, you haven't done your homework.

I'm so far a head of you, text, it's not even funny. But you keep spinning away, and serving your masters...
Click to expand...

Didn't you just say that?

ah, you serve your masters well..
Click to expand...

If you're so far ahead, why are you regurgitating the same tired lines?

And its Tex not "Text"


the only thing you are far ahead of me on is sticking your foot sqarley in your mouth and trying to push it further in with each post.

Face it. You screwed up claiming it was false to say he had not read the law when he admitted it.

After that, it was all downhill but keep going if you like. We are very entertained. :2wave:
 
I'm pretty sure the republicans didn't read the health care bill when they were criticizing it either.
 
Holder is a moron, and so is Obama for hiring him.
 
all in all, a bad day for holder before house judiciary: i haven't read the racist bill which is unconstitutional, i'm a football coach

and:

mr attorney general, were mr shahzad and mutallab and hasan motivated by radical islam?

there are a variety of reasons these people do the things they do...

ok, but could radical islam be one of those reasons?

well, like i say, there are a variety of reasons these people do the things they do and you have to look at each case individually...

fine, but is it possible, potentially, conceivably, that in that vast vortex of motives that impel these killers one of them might be a radical view of islam?

well, there are versions of islam that are not consistent with the teachings of islam...

could any one of these three instances have as its impetus radical islam?

i don't want to say anything negative about a religion...

ok, what about, then, the transfer of indivduals from gitmo, have we received assurances from the countries to whom we have transferred these individuals that we know where they are and what they're up to?

...

RealClearPolitics - Video - Holder Refuses To Use The Term "Radical Islam"

pathetic
 
So can anybody post a section other than 2B that impacts whether or not 2B is constitutional? Here's a link if that will help
 
The Prof said:
all in all, a bad day for holder before house judiciary: i haven't read the racist bill which is unconstitutional, i'm a football coach

and:

mr attorney general, were mr shahzad and mutallab and hasan motivated by radical islam?

there are a variety of reasons these people do the things they do...

ok, but could radical islam be one of those reasons?
Click to expand...

Prof:

You sound like a high school cheerleader on Face Book bad-mouthing your enemies on the other cheer squads. You get all giggly and warm inside with these partisan hit-stories.

Why don't you just let it all hang out and make fun of the way he talks and his outfits...
 
The Prof said:
all in all, a bad day for holder before house judiciary: i haven't read the racist bill which is unconstitutional, i'm a football coach

and:

mr attorney general, were mr shahzad and mutallab and hasan motivated by radical islam?

there are a variety of reasons these people do the things they do...

ok, but could radical islam be one of those reasons?

well, like i say, there are a variety of reasons these people do the things they do and you have to look at each case individually...

fine, but is it possible, potentially, conceivably, that in that vast vortex of motives that impel these killers one of them might be a radical view of islam?

well, there are versions of islam that are not consistent with the teachings of islam...

could any one of these three instances have as its impetus radical islam?

i don't want to say anything negative about a religion...

ok, what about, then, the transfer of indivduals from gitmo, have we received assurances from the countries to whom we have transferred these individuals that we know where they are and what they're up to?

...

RealClearPolitics - Video - Holder Refuses To Use The Term "Radical Islam"

pathetic
Click to expand...
You really have to read about this assclown who was assist AG under Clinton. He was involved in some **** that would cause any level head person to question his qualification and integrity to be AG. Unbelieveable. Of course he's against the AZ law, because his father was from Barbados....this moron can't keep himself impartial on anything.
 
So the guy comments and basically profiles Arizona himself, without ever reading or understanding the law that was passed in Arizona.

Yet he comments like he knows what is in it anyway.

I would say I am surprised, but this is Obama's Administration. They don't read anything and they tell us they have to pass bills before they can know what is in them.

So....really, Holder is just holding up the same consistant ignorance as Pelosi and the rest of these goons.:doh
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom