VaYank5150
Gold Member
She does, huh? Prove it!
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Holder Criticizing Bill He Hasn't Even Read...
- Thread starter AquaAthena
- Start date
She does, huh? Prove it!
Dr.House
Lives on in syndication!
Thank you for admitting YOU have not read the bill either and you are commenting based on basically NO knowledge of it. You rock!
Except SHE knows more about it than YOU...
You, well, don't rock at all!
She does, huh? Prove it!
SHE provided a link to an article as well as her testimony of what she's read and heard about it...
You've provided nothing but insults and false claims of her saying she's read the bill...
Here's where you prove you know more about it than she does! Go ahead, impress us with your "knowledge"....lol
Last edited:
VaYank5150
Gold Member
Except SHE knows more about it than YOU...
You, well, don't rock at all!
She does, huh? Prove it!
SHE provided a link to an article as well as her testimony of what she's read and heard about it...
You've provided nothing but insults and false claims of her saying she's read the bill...
Here's where you prove you know more about it than she does! Go ahead, impress us with your "knowledge"....lol
SHE admitted she hasn't read the bill. What part of that are you not understanding? I can try to type slower if you think it will help?
The federal government is considering a lawsuit against a law that the U.S. attorney general hasn't even read.
Recent polls show solid public support for Arizona's new law aimed at cracking down on out-of-control illegal immigration in that state. Polls show more than 70 percent of Arizona residents support the new statute, and more than 60-percent support nationally.
The law drew immediate protests from supporters of illegal immigration, even though it clearly prohibits "racial profiling" -- one of the major criticisms leveled by protestors.
Based on the media coverage of the protests, the Obama administration has indicated it may file a federal lawsuit against Arizona to block the law. On Thursday, Congressman Ted Poe (R-Texas) of the House Judiciary Committee questioned U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder about the administration's plans regarding the controversial law.
Poe: "The law is supported by 70 percent of the people in Arizona, 60 percent of all Americans, and 50 percent of all Hispanics, according to the Wall Street Journal/NBC poll done just this week. And I understand that you may file a lawsuit against the law. It seems to me the administration ought to be enforcing border security and immigration laws and not challenge them, and that the administration is on the wrong side of the American people. Have you read the Arizona law?"
Holder: "I have not had a chance...I've glanced at it, I have not read it...."
Poe: "It's ten pages. It's a lot shorter than the healthcare bill, which was 2,000 pages long. I'll give you my copy of it if you'd like to have a copy. Even though you haven't read the law, do you have an opinion as to whether it's constitutional?"
Holder: "I've not been briefed yet. We, as I've said, have had under way a review of the law. I have not been briefed by the people who are responsible for that review."
Poe: "When do you think you will have an opinion as to whether the law is constitutional?"
Holder: "I've used this term a lot, but I think this is accurate: relatively soon. I think that we have to...there has been much discussion about this...."
Poe: "It's hard for me to understand how you would have concerns about something being unconstitutional if you haven't even read the law. It seems like you wouldn't make a judgment about whether it violates civil rights statutes...if you haven't read the law. So can you help me out there a little bit, how you can make a judgment call on that but you haven't read the law and determined whether it's constitutional or not?"
Holder: "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...television...talking to people who are on the review team looking at the law. But I've not reached any conclusions yet...I've just expressed concerns on the basis of what I've heard about the law."
Holder: I haven't read AZ immigration law (OneNewsNow.com)
Recent polls show solid public support for Arizona's new law aimed at cracking down on out-of-control illegal immigration in that state. Polls show more than 70 percent of Arizona residents support the new statute, and more than 60-percent support nationally.
The law drew immediate protests from supporters of illegal immigration, even though it clearly prohibits "racial profiling" -- one of the major criticisms leveled by protestors.
Based on the media coverage of the protests, the Obama administration has indicated it may file a federal lawsuit against Arizona to block the law. On Thursday, Congressman Ted Poe (R-Texas) of the House Judiciary Committee questioned U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder about the administration's plans regarding the controversial law.
Poe: "The law is supported by 70 percent of the people in Arizona, 60 percent of all Americans, and 50 percent of all Hispanics, according to the Wall Street Journal/NBC poll done just this week. And I understand that you may file a lawsuit against the law. It seems to me the administration ought to be enforcing border security and immigration laws and not challenge them, and that the administration is on the wrong side of the American people. Have you read the Arizona law?"
Holder: "I have not had a chance...I've glanced at it, I have not read it...."
Poe: "It's ten pages. It's a lot shorter than the healthcare bill, which was 2,000 pages long. I'll give you my copy of it if you'd like to have a copy. Even though you haven't read the law, do you have an opinion as to whether it's constitutional?"
Holder: "I've not been briefed yet. We, as I've said, have had under way a review of the law. I have not been briefed by the people who are responsible for that review."
Poe: "When do you think you will have an opinion as to whether the law is constitutional?"
Holder: "I've used this term a lot, but I think this is accurate: relatively soon. I think that we have to...there has been much discussion about this...."
Poe: "It's hard for me to understand how you would have concerns about something being unconstitutional if you haven't even read the law. It seems like you wouldn't make a judgment about whether it violates civil rights statutes...if you haven't read the law. So can you help me out there a little bit, how you can make a judgment call on that but you haven't read the law and determined whether it's constitutional or not?"
Holder: "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...television...talking to people who are on the review team looking at the law. But I've not reached any conclusions yet...I've just expressed concerns on the basis of what I've heard about the law."
Holder: I haven't read AZ immigration law (OneNewsNow.com)
Dr.House
Lives on in syndication!
She does, huh? Prove it!
SHE provided a link to an article as well as her testimony of what she's read and heard about it...
You've provided nothing but insults and false claims of her saying she's read the bill...
Here's where you prove you know more about it than she does! Go ahead, impress us with your "knowledge"....lol
SHE admitted she hasn't read the bill. What part of that are you not understanding? I can try to type slower if you think it will help?
SHE has provided more than YOU about the bill in this thread...
What do YOU have? You claim to know more about it than she does - show us...
VaYank5150
Gold Member
SHE provided a link to an article as well as her testimony of what she's read and heard about it...
You've provided nothing but insults and false claims of her saying she's read the bill...
Here's where you prove you know more about it than she does! Go ahead, impress us with your "knowledge"....lol
SHE admitted she hasn't read the bill. What part of that are you not understanding? I can try to type slower if you think it will help?
SHE has provided more than YOU about the bill in this thread...
What do YOU have? You claim to know more about it than she does - show us...
Can you not read or is it a comprehension problem? Here are MY words. Do try to pay attention:
Thank you for admitting YOU have not read the bill either and you are commenting based on basically NO knowledge of it. You rock!
I haven't read the bill, neither have you.
I do however watch the news and read my friend.
Everything I've read and heard has been to the effect that the AZ bill mirrors Fed immigrations laws verbatum.
As I said. You wanna read it, feel free. Take notes.
Be sure you let me know if all the news media and newspapers and articles are lying.
Oh and BTW I do ROCK in capital letters. LOL
I have NOT read the bill. The difference is I am not on a message board pretending to know what is in it. That would be YOU.
chanel
Silver Member
He should take his boss's advice and stop getting his news from his Xbox. Lol
xsited1
Agent P
Holder is a funny man. He just doesn't quite 'get it':
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOQt_mP6Pgg]YouTube - Eric Holder Refuses To Say "Radical Islam"[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOQt_mP6Pgg]YouTube - Eric Holder Refuses To Say "Radical Islam"[/ame]
Dr.House
Lives on in syndication!
I have NOT read the bill. The difference is I am not on a message board pretending to know what is in it. That would be YOU.
Except she's NOT "pretending to know what's in it"...
Damn, you're fucking stupid... Do you study with truthdoesntmatter on the weekends?
It does? Please provide one specific example from the AZ bill and how it mirrors the "Fed law"?
From all I've read about this new AZ law, it was very carefully written and crafted to to mirror the Fed immigration laws. I've watched several channels about it and they all say the same.
If you want to look it up yourself and prove me wrong.
Feel free.
Her is one link you might find interesting to read
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1215
See Federal Rules for Criminal Procedure, rule 41
From rule 41:
(c) Persons or Property Subject to Search or Seizure.
A warrant may be issued for any of the following:
(1) evidence of a crime; (NOT a Reasonable Suspicion)
(2) contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed;
(3) property designed for use, intended for use, or used in committing a crime; or
(4) a person to be arrested or a person who is unlawfully restrained.
[/I
And, (A) Property includes documents, books, papers, any other tangible objects, and information.
Rule 41 does NOT apply here. Being an illegal alien and driving drunk are pretty much parallel in this sense. If the officer pulls a driver over for driving with no brake lights, he may determine that there is reasonable suspiscion to believe that the driver is drunk or that the driver or passengers in the vehicle are committing a crime.
This is reasonable suspiscion and preceeds the issuance of a warrent.
Citing reasonable suspiscion, an officer may demand that a person take a breathalizer test or be presumed to be drunk. If an officer working in Arizona or El Paso for that matter encounters a van with 12 passengers who do not speak English, he might reasonably suspect that these people are illegal immigrants. Asking for proof of legality is justified.
Lacking the proper identification, Probale Cause is realized at this step, just as with a failed breathalizer, and an arrest can be made.
It has been Federal law for 70 years that when a non-citizen is in this country that he must carry with him at all times the proof that he is here legally.
United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Fourth Amendment Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/m013006.pdf
And Fourth Amendment reasonableness is that point at which the governments interest
advanced by a particular search or seizure outweighs the loss of individual privacy or
freedom of movement that attends the governments action, Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419,
427 (2004)(in judging reasonableness, we look to the gravity of the public concerns served
by the seizure, the degree to which the seizure advances the public interest, and the severity
of the interference with individual liberty).
Yurt
Gold Member
It does? Please provide one specific example from the AZ bill and how it mirrors the "Fed law"?
From all I've read about this new AZ law, it was very carefully written and crafted to to mirror the Fed immigration laws. I've watched several channels about it and they all say the same.
If you want to look it up yourself and prove me wrong.
Feel free.
Her is one link you might find interesting to read
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1215
Thank you for admitting YOU have not read the bill either and you are commenting based on basically NO knowledge of it. You rock!
yet you run around making false accusations about the bill without having read it yourself and with absolutely no foundation for your baseless accusations....you can't show it doesn't mirror federal law
that's sop for demonrats.. sop.. they never read, or have facts, they just knee jerk.
Yup, he has to criticize it before he knows what's in it. Exactly like pelosi and the rest of the democrat turds do when they vote on bills.
Last edited:
Soggy in NOLA
Diamond Member
- Jul 31, 2009
- 40,565
- 5,358
- 1,830
I heard this today... this guy is an imbecile.
BasicGreatGuy
Aut libertas aut mors
Sadly, most of the employees in Washington haven't read bills they voted on. And to make matters worse, many of these same employees keep getting hired again by employees who haven't done their own reading. Why is anyone surprised Eric commented on a bill he hadn't read? It was wrong of him to not read the bill.
WillowTree
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2008
- 84,532
- 16,091
- 2,180
Holder is a funny man. He just doesn't quite 'get it':
YouTube - Eric Holder Refuses To Say "Radical Islam"
he doesn't read it but he knows it's racist!
Mr Holder is simply using all the things he has been taught. He is a very good student obviously.
Congress passes unread laws and tells us we must pass them to learn what's in them.
Obama admits that the cops were stupid even though he doesn't have all the facts in the case.
Holder will sue a State over something he has heard but hasn't had the time to read.
This Administration and Congress need to go. Where? Anywhere but Washington.
Congress passes unread laws and tells us we must pass them to learn what's in them.
Obama admits that the cops were stupid even though he doesn't have all the facts in the case.
Holder will sue a State over something he has heard but hasn't had the time to read.
This Administration and Congress need to go. Where? Anywhere but Washington.
Last edited:
"I have not had a chance to -- I've glanced at it," Holder said at a House Judiciary Committee hearing when asked had he read the state law cracking down on illegal immigrants.
Much more: FOXNews.com - Holder Admits to Not Reading Arizona's Immigration Law Despite Criticizing It
It's ten pages. If he has time to "glance at it", he has time to read it.
He said he didn't read it.
A glance means he skimmed through it at best.
Let's be honest...they were gonna use something like this to change the subject no matter what. They figured this was as good as any other issue.
"I have not had a chance to -- I've glanced at it," Holder said at a House Judiciary Committee hearing when asked had he read the state law cracking down on illegal immigrants.
Much more: FOXNews.com - Holder Admits to Not Reading Arizona's Immigration Law Despite Criticizing It
Of course, Eric Holder couldn't READ 10 pages---he's too busy trying to catch up with the 2000 pages of the 787 stimulus bill--and another 2700 pages of the national health care bill that NO ONE read before signing off on it.
BIG DEAL! They should just do "cliff notes" in the future to get through this Government B.S. that is bankrupting this country.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 113
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 61
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 12
- Views
- 407
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 58
- Views
- 177
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8090
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 471
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-