Should Barry and Gang Read Arizona Law Before Criticizing It ?? ...just wondering...

Discussion in 'Politics' started by quantsteve, May 18, 2010.

  1. If the federal government is going to criticize a particular state's law, should Voters and American people expect them to read said law before rendering an opinion:

    First Attorney General Eric Holder admitted that he hadn't read the law.

    Then Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano admitted that she hadn't read then law.

    Now Asst. Attorney Genral P.J. Crowley admits that he hasn't read the law.

    What gives?

    Are they all lying?

    If not, why on earth have they not taken the time to read this law before bashing it publicly?
  2. Every day. All day. Non-stop...

    They lie about almost EVERYTHING! Even worse than Bush.
  3. You look much better in the end by saying false things about the bill for political reasons by using the cover you haven't read it so you can't be held accountable for being a dunce.
  4. Why Obama Regime does NOT Read Arizona Law BEFORE forming opinion:

    1) They don't even read the laws they want to pass (eg Health Bill), so why would they bother to read this one?

    2) Plausible Deniability

    3) They just want to rile up the ignorant masses with their half truths and mis-information.
  5. Mav88


    For the same reason he signed a healthcare bill he didn't read.

    He's all about image and fluff, never worked a day in his life.
  6. jem


    these people are the most miserable scum.
    This is so cynical.
    Instead of being embarrassed about being so stupid and unprepared they aspire to such a state.
    They use ignorance as a shield.

    Democrats - transparency through willful ignorance.

    Could you imagine the meetings.

    What if the press asked you your read the bill?

    Tell them you didn't so they can't hold your responsible for your statements.

    don't worrry - Obama won't be upset... he likes his advisors looking ignorant instead of communist. (this is what they can get away with because the press does not do its job.)
  7. There are about 12 million illegal aliens in this country. But if you ask a native american, its more like 300 million.

    Can't wait until the Native Americans start pulling over vans of white people asking "Papers, please"
  8. jem


    but who was here before the current crop of native americans. Mexico claims they own the SW.

    Did the native americans wipe out a group of Cro Magnons or some other group?

    If we are going to play who got it first...

    Then perhaps - my favorite law joke is apropo...

    A lawyer searches title for an FHA loan..

    He was told the loan would be granted if he could prove satisfactory title to a parcel of property being offered as collateral. The title to the property dated back to 1803, which took the lawyer 3 months to track down.

    After sending the information to the FHA, he received the following reply (actual letter): "Upon review of your letter adjoining your client's loan application, we note that the request is supported by an Abstract of Title.

    While we compliment the able manner in which you have prepared and presented an application, we must point out that you have only cleared title to the proposed collateral property back to 1803. Before final approval can be accorded, it will be necessary to clear title back to its origin."

    Annoyed, the lawyer responded as follows (actual letter): Your letter regarding title in Case 189156 has been received. I note that you wish to have title extended further than in the years covered by the present application.

    I was unaware that any educated person in this country, particularly those working in the property area, would not know that Louisiana was purchased by the U.S. from France in 1803, the year of origin identified in our application.

    For the edification of uninformed FHA bureaucrats, the title to land prior to U.S. ownership was obtained from France, which had acquired it by Right of Conquest from Spain.

    The land came into possession of Spain by Right of Discovery made in the year 1492 by a sea captain named Christopher Columbus, who had been granted the privilege of seeking a new route to India by the reigning monarch, Isabella. The good queen, being a pious woman and careful about titles, almost as much as the FHA, took the precaution of securing the blessing of the Pope before she sold her jewels to fund Columbus' expedition.

    Now the Pope, as I'm sure you know, is the emissary of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. And God, it is commonly accepted, created this world. Therefore, I believe it is safe to presume that He also made that part of the world called Louisiana. He, therefore, would be the owner of origin. I hope to heavens you find His original claim to be satisfactory. Now, may we have our damn loan?"

    ... They got their loan.
  9. Seriously, if POTUS thinks this issue warrants federal scrutiny, then the Attorney General Holder owes it to the president, and to the American people of the USA to have read it.

    Instead, this means that Phony Barry came out against it, WITHOUT discussing the constitutionality with the Attorney General of the United States. If he had, he would have learned that Holder had not read it, and should have instructed Holder to read it , analyze it, compare it to Federal Statutes, and deliver a report, PRONTO. Leadership????

    No, instead POS Barry goes out and makes comments to inflame the "ice cream loving Latinos".

    Janet Nap said that she would not sign a bill like the "one she hasn't read".

    The legislation when first written was ten pages, and something like 16 with addendum's. Holder, what a stupid political pawn. The guy blasts the law, which is merely trying to enforce preexisting law and do what the federal government is unwilling to do, and then tells Congress that he hadn't actually read it. Brilliant.
    #10     May 19, 2010