GreekChat.com Forums  

Go Back   GreekChat.com Forums > General Chat Topics > News & Politics
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

» GC Stats
Members: 329,746
Threads: 115,668
Posts: 2,205,146
Welcome to our newest member, AlfredEmpom
» Online Users: 4,038
0 members and 4,038 guests
No Members online
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-14-2010, 12:31 PM
HDL66 HDL66 is offline
GreekChat Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by AOII Angel View Post
And he did say "could" and "may" not "will". FWIW, I don't think most people commenting on the bill have read the whole thing. BTW, I believe he's had his hands full lately...anyone see the news last night?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AOII Angel View Post
Has he gone on TV specifically to comment on it or did he go on TV at which time someone asked him about it? There is a difference.
Are you serious? The Attorney General of the United States commenting on an extremely controverial bill which he has not read and you are giving him a pass because his "hands are full" and he 'didn't go on TV to specifically comment on it?' He was on the Sunday morning talk show circuit, for Pete's sake. It was certainly one of the topics he was going to be asked about it. A sophomore debate student would have read the bill and been more prepared.

But, oh, that didn't stop Holder from commenting!!! Quoting from his interview with David Gregory:

We are considering all of our options, and we--one of the things that we are thinking about is the possibility of filing, filing a lawsuit. But we're considering all of our options at this point. Whether or not it is something that we can file a lawsuit based on federal pre-emption grounds, whether we think that the law as enacted could violate federal civil rights statutes.

I guess I am setting the bar pretty high, but I think the Attorney General could read a 10 page bill before he comments in a national public forum that the administration is considering filing a lawsuit on it!!! He probably didn't read it so he could feign ignorance about the fact that it closely mirrors the federal law (which the federal gov. refuses to enforce, BTW.) This administration would rather use inuendo about the "the possibility of leading to racial profiling" (Holder's words) to stir up racial tensions. IMHO, a pure political play.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghostwriter View Post
I read it. I thought it was 12 pages when I did so but in any event it only took 20-25 minutes.

I would think that if an AG is going to go on TV and comment and state opinions on a states law he should at least read the damn thing.
^^THIS.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-14-2010, 12:36 PM
AOII Angel AOII Angel is offline
GreekChat Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Santa Monica/Beverly Hills
Posts: 8,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDL66 View Post
Are you serious? The Attorney General of the United States commenting on an extremely controverial bill which he has not read and you are giving him a pass because his "hands are full" and he 'didn't go on TV to specifically comment on it?' He was on the Sunday morning talk show circuit, for Pete's sake. It was certainly one of the topics he was going to be asked about it. A sophomore debate student would have read the bill and been more prepared.

But, oh, that didn't stop Holder from commenting!!! Quoting from his interview with David Gregory:

We are considering all of our options, and we--one of the things that we are thinking about is the possibility of filing, filing a lawsuit. But we're considering all of our options at this point. Whether or not it is something that we can file a lawsuit based on federal pre-emption grounds, whether we think that the law as enacted could violate federal civil rights statutes.

I guess I am setting the bar pretty high, but I think the Attorney General could read a 10 page bill before he comments in a national public forum that the administration is considering filing a lawsuit on it!!! He probably didn't read it so he could feign ignorance about the fact that it closely mirrors the federal law (which the federal gov. refuses to enforce, BTW.) This administration would rather use inuendo about the "the possibility of leading to racial profiling" (Holder's words) to stir up racial tensions. IMHO, a pure political play.
How I read this is that he will be looking at the bill to determine if it violates the federal law. How does this say, "I read the bill and don't agree with it?" It doesn't bother me in the least that he hasn't read it yet. It's a bill for a state that hasn't even been enacted that is currently being challenged by people from within the state. He has quite a bit of time to work on more pressing matters that have to do with our country as a whole and not just the State of Arizona. Would I like him to get to the bill? Yes. Is it job #1? Nope.
__________________

AOII

One Motto, One Badge, One Bond and Singleness of Heart!




Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is this the answer to immigration reform? DaemonSeid News & Politics 14 04-12-2010 11:29 AM
Immigration Bill - Thoughts? SummerChild Alpha Kappa Alpha 4 06-23-2007 07:10 PM
Illegal Immigration Statement. Tom Earp News & Politics 5 09-26-2006 10:05 AM
I hate the Immigration Office AchtungBaby80 Chit Chat 12 05-08-2003 10:46 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.