I never called this law constitutional, just, right, okie dokie, all good, square, balanced, fair, legal, or supported by myself.
Your missing the point, he has not filed suit, he has not said for sure whether or not he will. He was asked to to give his opinion and he said the Arizona law “has the possibility of leading to racial profiling.” He had earlier called the law’s passage “unfortunate,” and questioned whether the law was unconstitutional because it tried to assume powers that may be reserved for the federal government. Someone in his office has read it and given their opinion on what the likely fall out will be. You think Congressman read every piece of legislation and attend every meeting before they vote on something? Does your boss attend every planning meeting or just the one at the end before they move on something?
Talking to the press and testifying before Congress are two different things. Since your example of this is Ollie North, I guess you wouldn't understand. Basso what is your stance on this law, are you as fervent a supporter as you are of other racist GOP initiatives? Don't you feel that, since you are a Registered Republican, this will hurt your party in the long run? I hope (and believe) it will.
It is pretty bold to say it is unfortunate a law passed that you are so unfamiliar with that you need to use the "no comment, haven't read it" card when asked about it. Sure. And that's fine. He should have qualified his initial comments on the issue with the "I haven't read it but I've been told..." and "I'm going to reserve judgment until I have a better understanding of the law." Of course not. But I would be equally disappointed if a Congressman voted for a bill and then used the "sorry I can't answer your questions because I haven't read it." And while I am following your comparison to my boss, it falls a little short because he is not a high ranking public official. His words have significantly weaker consequences than that of the AGofUS. I have no problem with Holder believing the law to be unconstitutional or expressing that opinion. I think it is weak sauce that a man of his stature would weigh in and call the law unfortunate when he would later pull the "haven't read it" card when pressed for a comment. He can't opine on it? How does he know it's unconstitutional? Because he was briefed by an aide? Did that aide not brief him thoroughly enough to comment on it? Anyway, I hate that we've gotten tied up on this because in the long run it's just an annoyance of mine with Holder that he is constantly looking like a weak imbecile. It is not overly important and is not really relevant to the Arizona issue.
you gotta love the Debate forum.. 90% of the threads its Basso and SamFisher going back and forth... anyways I have not read the law specifically but I am thinking the media and people are blowing this thing way out of proportion. From what I heard talking to my friend in Arizona is all the law does is take current existing federal law and makes it state law so they can have state law enforcement enforce it since the federal government isnt. So people calling the law racist should also complain about federal law also then. Again I am not sure if this is all true but it's to the extent of my knowledge. Anyhow GOOOO SUNS!!!!!
Did you call me a r****d for having a different viewpoint than you? My main points were that the law itself isn't racist, - whether or not the Arizona police will take it too far is a separate discussion - and that if the Feds were enforcing existing laws, Arizona wouldn't have needed to pass this thing in the first place.
I still think it's funny this is the same guy that called us a "nation of cowards" and he can't read a bill that I can read and finish while taking a dump... it's a simple 10 pages. You got to be a pretty hardcore lefty to argue in favor of him not reading this bill.
...for believing that a state law (or federal law for that matter) is, dispositively constitutional and cannot be unconstitutionally applied, because the text of the state law itself declares it to be. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
But if you give amnesty a second time, what is to stop more and more people from coming over here illegally and bypassing legal immigration? The guest worker program is a good idea.
Stacy, just ignore SamFisher. That is the best advice I can give you on this forum. There are a lot of people who will share their views without resorting to name calling. SamFisher always resorts to personal attacks and name calling. He is just too full of himself. You will see it over and over in every single thread. You will get your extreme lefts like Sam and your extreme rights also. Best thing to do is just sit back and enjoy the entertainment.
Amnesty is one of the worst ideas and doesn't solve the problem it only encourages it. Amnesty will just lead to more illegal immigration. You will have a flood of illegal immigrants from all over the world expecting they can be granted amnesty. Just watch as the country collapses then. Amnesty doesn't cure the problem; it exacerbates it.
I see you didn't follow your own advice for too long. (I have nothing to add to this thread, but the juxtaposition of these 2 posts made me lol.)
Thanks for the advice. I'm sure that since I somewhat agreed with Basso's point that he assumed I was a crazy right wing tea bagger, so I didn't get too offended. I'm still curious on what people expect states like Arizona to do if the Feds won't control the border. Drug trafficking and violence are on the rise in the border states, so doesn't something need to change?
haha yes I knew someone might point that out. I did not mean to reply to SamFisher but wanted to reply to address the view/issue on Amnesty.
Exactly! I just love how all these outsides from all over the country are commenting on Arizona. They have a clear problem and the people of Arizona want to do something about it. Why is the rest of the nation up in arms about it. For a change they have an issue and the state govt wants to fix and address the issue. Cant really say that about California.
