Are you f-in kidding me

[Guest 2smart4u]

Our retarded Attorney General, Eric Holder has been blasting Arizona's new law as racist, promotes profiling, anti-American, etc. etc. etc. During a congressional hearing yesterday, a Texas congressman asked Holder if he had read the bill. Holder stuttered and stammered and then admitted he had never read the bill.

This is quite an administration we have. Comrade zerO , Joe Gaffe Biden, Napolitano, Holder. Scarey.

[Guest Guest]

Our retarded Attorney General, Eric Holder has been blasting Arizona's new law as racist, promotes profiling, anti-American, etc. etc. etc. During a congressional hearing yesterday, a Texas congressman asked Holder if he had read the bill. Holder stuttered and stammered and then admitted he had never read the bill.

This is quite an administration we have. Comrade zerO , Joe Gaffe Biden, Napolitano, Holder. Scarey.

Idiot,

How many of the bills you pontificate on have you read?

[Guest Guest]

Our retarded Attorney General, Eric Holder has been blasting Arizona's new law as racist, promotes profiling, anti-American, etc. etc. etc. During a congressional hearing yesterday, a Texas congressman asked Holder if he had read the bill. Holder stuttered and stammered and then admitted he had never read the bill.

This is quite an administration we have. Comrade zerO , Joe Gaffe Biden, Napolitano, Holder. Scarey.

This is the same pussy that finds himself unable to utter the words "radical islamic terrorists", he doesn't want to "offend" the religion of Islam.

[Guest Guest]

Idiot,

How many of the bills you pontificate on have you read?

Hey, 2stupid4words, answer the question. How many of the laws on which you think you're the world's expert have you read?

It's OK to tell the truth. But since you won't, I'll do it for you.

You haven't read ANY of them.

Which means that in addition to being a

MORON,

you're also a

HYPOCRITE.

What a surprise.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Our retarded Attorney General, Eric Holder has been blasting Arizona's new law as racist, promotes profiling, anti-American, etc. etc. etc. During a congressional hearing yesterday, a Texas congressman asked Holder if he had read the bill. Holder stuttered and stammered and then admitted he had never read the bill.

This is quite an administration we have. Comrade zerO , Joe Gaffe Biden, Napolitano, Holder. Scarey.

Look for Eric Holder to be dismissed by Comrade zerO. Holder has become such an embarrassment to zerO with his constant ridiculous statements that he can't be allowed to hold the office of Attorney General much longer.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Our retarded Attorney General, Eric Holder has been blasting Arizona's new law as racist, promotes profiling, anti-American, etc. etc. etc. During a congressional hearing yesterday, a Texas congressman asked Holder if he had read the bill. Holder stuttered and stammered and then admitted he had never read the bill.

This is quite an administration we have. Comrade zerO , Joe Gaffe Biden, Napolitano, Holder. Scarey.

You would think Holder's embarrassment at not having read Arizona's bill would prompt Napolitano to read the bill, right?? Napolitano was questioned yesterday at a Senate hearing by John McCain and asked if she had read the bill. Incredibly, she answered she had not read the bill but said she was against it.

WTF !!! This Comrade zerO administration is f-n unbelievably incompetent.

[Guest Loki]

Maybe its me, but I'm a whole lot less concerned that a random poster on a message board has an opinion on a bill that he/she may or may not have read, than the Attorney General of the US. The people that vote on these bills, and whose duty it is to enforce these laws, are DUTY BOUND to know what's in it. It is a public trust, that they need to exercise, for those that voted for them, and placed them in these positions (AG is appointed by Pres., who is elected, just to avoid any confusion).

If we do not, at the very least, expect this from public servants, than perhaps this great Republic is already undone.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Maybe its me, but I'm a whole lot less concerned that a random poster on a message board has an opinion on a bill that he/she may or may not have read, than the Attorney General of the US. The people that vote on these bills, and whose duty it is to enforce these laws, are DUTY BOUND to know what's in it. It is a public trust, that they need to exercise, for those that voted for them, and placed them in these positions (AG is appointed by Pres., who is elected, just to avoid any confusion).

If we do not, at the very least, expect this from public servants, than perhaps this great Republic is already undone.

Just another clear example of the stupidity on the left. This moron is not concerned that Eric Holder hasn't

read the bill but thinks I should have read it.

And our great republic is not done........yet. But if we don't un-elect Comrade zerO in '12 it may be.

[Guest Guest]

Maybe its me, but I'm a whole lot less concerned that a random poster on a message board has an opinion on a bill that he/she may or may not have read, than the Attorney General of the US. The people that vote on these bills, and whose duty it is to enforce these laws, are DUTY BOUND to know what's in it. It is a public trust, that they need to exercise, for those that voted for them, and placed them in these positions (AG is appointed by Pres., who is elected, just to avoid any confusion).

If we do not, at the very least, expect this from public servants, than perhaps this great Republic is already undone.

The Attorney General of the United States is not under any duty to know the entire content of or enforce a law of the State of Arizona, especially one that is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court, which may pass on this legislation, probably won't read the entire bill either. It isn't necessary if the only thing at issue is a particular provision or provisions.

So yet again, the right wing is wrong.

[Guest Guest]

The Attorney General of the United States is not under any duty to know the entire content of or enforce a law of the State of Arizona, especially one that is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court, which may pass on this legislation, probably won't read the entire bill either. It isn't necessary if the only thing at issue is a particular provision or provisions.

So yet again, the right wing is wrong.

Kool-Aid alert !!

[Guest Guest]

Just another clear example of the stupidity on the left. This moron is not concerned that Eric Holder hasn't

read the bill but thinks I should have read it.

And our great republic is not done........yet. But if we don't un-elect Comrade zerO in '12 it may be.

Stupid,

The point is that you're attacking a federal official for not reading a state law, when you haven't read it yourself. Your argument was that Holder has no business commenting on the law if he hasn't read it. But you haven't read any of the laws on which you proclaim yourself an expert.

Understand now, stupid?

[Guest Guest]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with what Holder said. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rH1FEcbi4A There are legitimate concerns based on the authority reportedly given to each and every police officer to arrest someone based solely on the officer's suspicion that the person might be illegally in the U.S. And while one section of the law outlaws racial profiling, that is merely a reaffirmation of existing law. It doesn't undo the damage created by the other section within the law, which gives new authority to individual officers to arrest and detain based on a mere suspicion. Rep. Poe's comments on the youtube video are disingenuous for that reason. He is using one section of the law to defend the entire law. That is not how the courts will have to look at it if the law is challenged.

Furthermore, the section outlawing racial profiling operates exactly the way most racists operate. They'll deny being racists. So the law contains a section that says "we're not authorizing racism" and another law that invites them to arrest people based solely on a suspicion, whatever that means to any individual officer. If that's what the law says, it should be challenged and probably will be overturned.

Holder's comments are being mischaracterized. He hasn't made a final judgment. It's entirely appropriate, and necessary, for the administration to review and analyze the law fully before taking a definite position. As usual, the radical right wants to steamroll its opponents into taking a definitive position and at the same time criticize them for commenting before they've completed their analysis.

As for the 50-70% of the people who are said to support the law, I wonder how many of them have read it or even understand what's in it? How was the polling question phrased? It makes a difference.

[Guest Guest]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with what Holder said. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rH1FEcbi4A There are legitimate concerns based on the authority reportedly given to each and every police officer to arrest someone based solely on the officer's suspicion that the person might be illegally in the U.S. And while one section of the law outlaws racial profiling, that is merely a reaffirmation of existing law. It doesn't undo the damage created by the other section within the law, which gives new authority to individual officers to arrest and detain based on a mere suspicion. Rep. Poe's comments on the youtube video are disingenuous for that reason. He is using one section of the law to defend the entire law. That is not how the courts will have to look at it if the law is challenged.

Furthermore, the section outlawing racial profiling operates exactly the way most racists operate. They'll deny being racists. So the law contains a section that says "we're not authorizing racism" and another law that invites them to arrest people based solely on a suspicion, whatever that means to any individual officer. If that's what the law says, it should be challenged and probably will be overturned.

Holder's comments are being mischaracterized. He hasn't made a final judgment. It's entirely appropriate, and necessary, for the administration to review and analyze the law fully before taking a definite position. As usual, the radical right wants to steamroll its opponents into taking a definitive position and at the same time criticize them for commenting before they've completed their analysis.

As for the 50-70% of the people who are said to support the law, I wonder how many of them have read it or even understand what's in it? How was the polling question phrased? It makes a difference.

The problem with the law is in section 11-1051, subsection B, which reads: “FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373©.”

Law enforcement officials are given no guidance what the basis is for a reasonable suspicion. Many people immediately suspect all Hispanics, and would say that is a reasonable suspicion. That is racial profiling and it is unconstitutional. On that basis, a challenge to the law probably would succeed.

If Arizona wants a law to remove illegal aliens, they should state the criteria for a reasonable suspicion. Those criteria should draw the line between arresting someone because he is engaging in suspicious behavior, versus merely fitting the wrong stereotype. A section in the law outlawing racial profiling is not enough. The basis for reasonable suspicion must be stated in the law. The courts will eventually spell out the rules anyway. The legislature should avoid the challenges that will undoubtedly come up, and write a defensible statute now.

My knock on the left, and many on the right too, is that they don’t want immigration laws enforced. My knock on the right is that they could write a good bill if they wanted to do it but they didn’t.

[Guest Guest]

Stupid,

The point is that you're attacking a federal official for not reading a state law, when you haven't read it yourself. Your argument was that Holder has no business commenting on the law if he hasn't read it. But you haven't read any of the laws on which you proclaim yourself an expert.

Understand now, stupid?

See post #8, stupid

[Guest 2smart4u]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with what Holder said. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rH1FEcbi4A There are legitimate concerns based on the authority reportedly given to each and every police officer to arrest someone based solely on the officer's suspicion that the person might be illegally in the U.S. And while one section of the law outlaws racial profiling, that is merely a reaffirmation of existing law. It doesn't undo the damage created by the other section within the law, which gives new authority to individual officers to arrest and detain based on a mere suspicion. Rep. Poe's comments on the youtube video are disingenuous for that reason. He is using one section of the law to defend the entire law. That is not how the courts will have to look at it if the law is challenged.

Furthermore, the section outlawing racial profiling operates exactly the way most racists operate. They'll deny being racists. So the law contains a section that says "we're not authorizing racism" and another law that invites them to arrest people based solely on a suspicion, whatever that means to any individual officer. If that's what the law says, it should be challenged and probably will be overturned.

Holder's comments are being mischaracterized. He hasn't made a final judgment. It's entirely appropriate, and necessary, for the administration to review and analyze the law fully before taking a definite position. As usual, the radical right wants to steamroll its opponents into taking a definitive position and at the same time criticize them for commenting before they've completed their analysis.

As for the 50-70% of the people who are said to support the law, I wonder how many of them have read it or even understand what's in it? How was the polling question phrased? It makes a difference.

Make me laugh. Is there ANYTHING Comrade zerO or any member of his incompetent administration can do that a Loony would not give a pass ??

You're right. There's absolutely nothing wrong with Holder declaring a law is racist when he's never read the bill. I think Napolitano told him the bill was

racist, that's why he said that. Oh, wait..... Napolitano said she didn't read the bill either. Oh well, it's a minor detail anyway.

[Guest Loki]

The Attorney General of the United States is not under any duty to know the entire content of or enforce a law of the State of Arizona, especially one that is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court, which may pass on this legislation, probably won't read the entire bill either. It isn't necessary if the only thing at issue is a particular provision or provisions.

So yet again, the right wing is wrong.

But, if he has no duty to know, or enforce, why should he comment on it AT ALL. I have opinions on a great many things, but, unlike you or some of your liberal friends, I only SHARE the opinion when I have a clue.

[Guest Guest]

But, if he has no duty to know, or enforce, why should he comment on it AT ALL.

Because the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection applies to all citizens and to the states. The U.S. Attorney General has no duty to enforce a state law but he may have a duty to challenge one.

I have opinions on a great many things, but, unlike you or some of your liberal friends, I only SHARE the opinion when I have a clue.

He does have a clue but that clue is based on news accounts and what he has heard from others. So he has a concern but not a final opinion. Again, there's nothing wrong with that. The right is jumping all over him, just like they always do when someone doesn't categorically agree with them. Unlike you and your right wing friends, we on hte left appreciate nuance because we recognize that reality is not just black and white but also many colors and shades of colors.

[Guest Loki]

Because the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection applies to all citizens and to the states. The U.S. Attorney General has no duty to enforce a state law but he may have a duty to challenge one.

He does have a clue but that clue is based on news accounts and what he has heard from others. So he has a concern but not a final opinion. Again, there's nothing wrong with that. The right is jumping all over him, just like they always do when someone doesn't categorically agree with them. Unlike you and your right wing friends, we on hte left appreciate nuance because we recognize that reality is not just black and white but also many colors and shades of colors.

Right, yours is the party of inclusion, just as long as they all AGREE with you. The liberals are tolerant of all shapes and sizes, but not all opinions. Tea party members get categorized as racist, sounds accepting to me.

The AG MAY have to challenge this law, I hope he reads it first. Basing his opinion on news accounts is ridiculous; all the people on TV agree with his point of view, so where is the information for him to gather and assess. Listen to everyone that tells you what you want to hear, and then take a stand based on that. The man is sheer brilliance. What a friggin' joke.

[Guest Guest]

But, if he has no duty to know, or enforce, why should he comment on it AT ALL. I have opinions on a great many things, but, unlike you or some of your liberal friends, I only SHARE the opinion when I have a clue.

You were told why in the previous post. The Attorney General of the U.S. has a duty to make sure the U.S. Constitution isn't being violated, in particular the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. He has no duty, or any authority whatsoever, to enforce Arizona law but he would be within the scope of his duties to challenge it if it is unconstitutional. That makes at least twice this has been explained to you. If you don't understand the explanation, then ask some questions, but don't just come back and act as though no one gave you the answer.

And Holder didn't share an opinion. He specifically said that he doesn't have a final opinion. He has concerns. That's perfectly appropriate. Unlike you and your right-wing idiot friends, we on the left understand that more often than not there are more than just two ways of looking at things.

[Guest Guest]

Right, yours is the party of inclusion, just as long as they all AGREE with you. The liberals are tolerant of all shapes and sizes, but not all opinions. Tea party members get categorized as racist, sounds accepting to me.

Weak argument, don't you think? Where's the content? There isn't any.

You got your butt smacked and you don't like how it feels. That's not my fault. It's yours.

As for the Tea Partiers, if they don't want to be called racists, then they should stop acting like racists. They hate this President, and it's very obvious that much of that is their fear of a black man being President. The language they use doesn't disguise their bigotry very well at all. All of them, no. But it does characterize this deplorable movement.

The AG MAY have to challenge this law, I hope he reads it first.

And he promised that he will. If he filed suit against the law without reading it, THEN you would have ground for complaint. But he hasn't. So in fact you and your fellow right-wing idiots are the ones acting precipitously by jumping all over the Attorney General for doing something he didn't do.

Basing his opinion on news accounts is ridiculous; all the people on TV agree with his point of view, so where is the information for him to gather and assess. Listen to everyone that tells you what you want to hear, and then take a stand based on that. The man is sheer brilliance. What a friggin' joke.

That's exactly what he is doing. He said that specifically. He did not base on opinion on news accounts. He read news accounts and was concerned about them. It's like the difference between proof beyond a reasonable doubt and probable cause. A judge doesn't need to have an opinion about an accused person's guilt to issue a warrant; he only needs enough of a suspicion for probable cause. In the same way, the AG doesn't have to have an opinion to investigate a law when he has reason to be concerned about it.

As usual, you right wing idiots are completely distorting what is happening. You insist on an instant and definitive answer from everyone you think you might disagree with. You have no capacity for nuance, uncertainty or shades of gray. Fortunately, we have an administration in charge now in which people think before taking action.