New Law in the U.S. State: Arizona

[clintjm]

Originally Posted by MMM

Is this really remarkable?

Are you feigning naiveté, Clint, or do you really think we are experiencing a dramatic change in administrative policy when members of Cabinet speak about bills (in this case an Arizona state bill) that hasn't been read word-for-word?

Why would it surprise you that the Attorney General of the United States has not read every state bill that goes into state law?

It is their job #1. #2 they shouldn't forward on falsehoods as truths. Don't defend this.

Because this isn't just any old state law. States are boycotting each other over this.
Also he is the legal advisor to the president. The president bases some of his opinions based on what the Attorney General concludes about such a law. If the president and the attorney general are basing opinions on falsehoods or reading what the law was from the Washington Post etc, then they aren't doing there job.

Originally Posted by MMM

But really, before our panties get too binded into knots, let's look at his exact words, according to your source, FOX News.

1) Three time in the article they use the term "voiced concerns". This is a ubiquitous phrase that doesn't call for the thunder and lightning you are trying to bring.

2) Attorney General Holder says he "fears the new law is subject to abuse". These are the same fears we have been talking about over the last couple weeks.

3) "On Thursday, Holder said he plans to read the law before reaching a decision on whether he thinks it's constitutional." So what is the problem? Your concerns are addressed in the very article you quote. Are you starting to see how FOX News operates?

4) "On Sunday, Holder said he does not think Arizona's law is racially motivated but voiced concern that its enforcement could lead to racial profiling." Again, the same things we have been talking about.

You are cutting his quotes in half:
----------------------
"When asked by Poe how he could have constitutional concerns about a law he has not read, Holder said: "Well, what I've said is that I've not made up my mind. I've only made the comments that I've made on the basis of things that I've been able to glean by reading newspaper accounts, obviously, television, talking to people who are on the review panel...looking at the law."

On Sunday, Holder said he does not think Arizona's law is racially motivated but voiced concern that its enforcement could lead to racial profiling.

Holder said he understands the frustration behind the Arizona law, but he warned during an appearance on ABC's "This Week" that "we could potentially get on a slippery slope where people will be picked on because of how they look as opposed to what they have done." "

------------------------

You don't make comments on something you didn't verify; especially in his position.

If you don't see the problem here, there is nothing further to engage you with. He is carrying on lies by the lib media and using his position to further them.

Now with Video:.
YouTube - Eric Holder on Arizona Law: "I have not read it yet"

[Adan]

Originally Posted by clintjm

To you're first question

“You’re” is always a contraction of “you are.” If you’ve written “you’re,” try substituting “you are.” If it doesn’t work, the word you want is “your.” Your writing will improve if you’re careful about this.


If someone thanks you, write back “you’re welcome” for “you are welcome.”

Also, I think this individual is just a troll.

[clintjm]

Originally Posted by Adan

“You’re” is always a contraction of “you are.” If you’ve written “you’re,” try substituting “you are.” If it doesn’t work, the word you want is “your.” Your writing will improve if you’re careful about this.

If someone thanks you, write back “you’re welcome” for “you are welcome.”

Also, I think this individual is just a troll.

The fact that in my 380 posts from the fall of 2009 and compared to your 12 posts from Dec of 2008, I made a grammar mistake of the contraction "you're" incorrectly in a post, and the other 379 are used correctly, thus showing my understanding of the concept.

Your fail to write to the topics of this thread. Instead call me a troll and attempt to make me look foolish from a grammatical mistake or typo. Make an argument and discuss something related to the topic, or you become the troll you accuse me of being.

I understand why you posted though. The truth hurts doesn't it?
Smear instead?

[MMM]

Clint, I think you are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

He says he is not advising the president on this bill until he reads it. He says he is basing his present opinion on what he has heard, and not on the words of the bill itself. He said he is reserving judgement until he is able to thoroughly review the bill.

He has a mic in his face, would you rather he say "No comment"? I wonder what your gripe about him would have been if he had done that.

Sounds like an honest and upright guy to me. We could use more of those in Washington.

[Adan]

Originally Posted by clintjm

The fact that in my 380 posts from the fall of 2009 and compared to your 12 posts from Dec of 2008 or you become the troll you accuse me of being.
I understand why you posted though. The truth hurts doesn't it?
Smear instead?

1. Are you really comparing the amount of posts I have versus yours,
like if that makes you a better person ? I LOL so hard at that! There are
multiple members here that are in the four digits when in comes to posts,
and one is about to hit five digits, does that make them better, smarter, stronger, than you? There are over 40k members here that have less posts then I, should I rejoice in my superb posting abilities?

2. I guarantee you that if I check you other 379 posts, I will find grammatical errors.

3. What is the "truth" you are talking about? Is it about the non-Japanese related troll-post you started? Here's the thing, if Arizona wants to target illegal immigrants and punish them, so be it. If Arizona wants to grant every illegal immigrant living in Arizona free citizenship, so be it. It doesn't affect me the least what Arizona is doing, or not doing for that matter. And if you are going to troll and rage at the same time, then you lose the game.

[clintjm]

Originally Posted by Adan

...

Sorry folks. I should not have replied in the first place.
Should of read the sign not to feed it.

[Adan]

Originally Posted by clintjm

Sorry folks. I should not have replied in the first place.
Should of read the sign not to feed it.

Yet another mistake. So much for the other 380 posts that I haven't (and will not) read.

Since you are apologizing to god knows who( I mention god because I'm a Protestant) for replying to my 12th post, your first line should have been connected by a coma (,) and not a period (.).

And when you said "should of", I think you meant to say, should have.
This is one of those errors typically made by a person more familiar with the spoken than the written form of English. A sentence like “I would have gone if anyone had given me free tickets” is normally spoken in a slurred way so that the two words “would have” are not distinctly separated, but blended together into what is properly rendered “would’ve.” Seeing that “V” tips you off right away that “would’ve” is a contraction of “would have.” But many people hear “would of” and that’s how they write it. Wrong.


Note that “must of” is similarly an error for “must have.”

Well Clint, I'm not here to start an inflammatory conversation. I'll actually be near Stateline, Nevada this July, maybe we should get together, share a drink, and talk like adults.

[clintjm]

Originally Posted by Adan

2. I guarantee you that if I check you other 379 posts, I will find grammatical errors....

fine fine.. I made another grammatical slur in my second sentence. At least I didn't say "should of not" in the first sentence of that post. I never said that all of my posts were all gramatically correct; and far from it. If you read my original post, it said I have used "your" and "you're" correctly in a majority of my other posts, showing that I understood it.

I only mentioned your post size because you decided to label me a troll when you, who have literally said nothing on this board, pop in and say nothing on the topic.

We all make grammatical errors and typos. Most of us type like we speak. Most of type on this forum on a pocket computer or pda. You make them, I make them. There is one diplayed quoted in the post by you. We could go look at our old posts on this board and find some more. Neither of us post in any kind of properly flowing format. Fragmented sentences, lower case pronoun "I" etc.

My point is, is that it is "trollish" for you to call out grammar or typing mistakes and call me a troll when you have no basis for it.

Again, post something on the topic of this thread or... well you know the rest.

[Ryzorian]

I make grammer errors all the time, who cares?


Hell, the Arizona law protects people from profileing more than federal law does, so I don't see why all the hubub. Maybe some folks are afraid the law will actually be inforced for once and half thier voters deported.

[West]

I don't really see anything wrong, obviously deporting them didn't work.
It's like trespassing. If you trespass, you go to jail.
I know many people don't like the law, but what's the big deal?