Sarah hits the trifecta today: [rquoter]American Apology Tour Continues On Fox News this morning, State Department Spokesman P.J. Crowley became the third Obama administration official in short succession to admit that he hadn’t actually bothered to read Arizona’s 10-page long “secure the border” bill before condemning it and criticizing Americans who support Arizona’s necessary efforts to do the job the Obama Administration should be doing. Crowley’s statement follows similar admissions from Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano. At first blush this revelation seemed unbelievable, but maybe I shouldn’t be surprised. This now seems “the Washington way” of doing things. If the party in power tells us they have to pass bills in order to find out what’s actually in them, they can also criticize bills (and divide the country with ensuing rhetoric) without actually reading them. Still I can’t help but feel outraged on behalf of Arizona’s citizens for the incompetence shown by these Administration officials. Arizonans have the courage to do what the Obama administration has failed to do in its first year and a half in office – namely secure our border and enforce our federal laws. And as a result, Arizonans have been subjected to a campaign of baseless accusations by the same people who freely admit they haven’t a clue about what they’re actually campaigning against. The absolute low point of this campaign came last Friday, when a U.S. State Department delegation met with Chinese negotiators to discuss human rights. Apparently, our State Department felt it necessary to make their Chinese guests feel less bad about their own record of human rights abuses by repeatedly atoning for American “sins” – including, it seems, the Arizona immigration/pro-border security law. Asked if Arizona came up at all during the meeting, Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner answered: “We brought it up early and often. It was mentioned in the first session, and as a troubling trend in our society and an indication that we have to deal with issues of discrimination or potential discrimination, and that these are issues very much being debated in our own society.” Note that he said “We brought it up” – not the Chinese, but the U.S. State Department’s own delegation. Instead of grilling the Chinese about their appalling record on human rights, the State Department continued the unbelievable apology tour by raising “early and often” Arizona’s decision to secure our border. Arizona’s law, which just mirrors the federal law, simply allows the police to ask those whom they have already stopped for some form of identification like a driver’s license. By what absurd stretch of the imagination is that the moral equivalent of China’s lack of freedoms, population controls (including forced abortions), censorship, and arbitrary detentions? Surely our U.S. Ambassador to China, John Huntsman, must disagree with the Obama Administration’s continued apology tour? We have nothing to apologize for. If Administration officials want to apologize to anyone, apologize to the American people for the fact that after a year and a half in office, they still haven’t done anything to secure our borders, and they join our President in making false suggestions about Arizona’s effort. - Sarah Palin[/rquoter] Sam- i agree with Sarah.
speaking of sister sarah -- Not one Alaska resident donated to Palin's "SarahPAC" in the first quarter of 2010, Sarah Palin may be uber-popular among the conservative base, her endorsement highly sought after by mid-level candidates -- but she's not doing so well among her fellow Alaskans. Not one Alaska resident donated to Palin's "SarahPAC" in the first quarter of 2010, according to FEC reports. In the second half of 2009, only 33 donations -- out of some 2,000 totaling $1.4 million -- came from her home state. In the first half of the year, it was 29. Palin resigned as governor of Alaska in July 2009, halfway through her first term.
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.
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.
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.
Its threads like these that make me think that basso and SamFisher are the same exact person with two accounts. One to post as a ridiculous person on the left, the other to post as a ridiculous person on the right...and all just to mess with everybody else. In relation to the thread, I think I read somewhere that California already has a very similar law on the books. Don't know if its true, but maybe worth looking into.
Just a ? has anyone did a Poll on the AZ law on this board to see how the poster feel maybe Sam can get he answer from Basso then .
Look who else is commenting on the law and hasn't read it. Seems kind of weird; not reading a law from your own state. McCain Commented On AZ Anti-Immigrant Law While Admitting He Hadn’t Looked ‘At All The Aspects’ Of It
"Hadn’t Looked ‘At All The Aspects’ Of It" could just as easily mean he hadn't fully considered the ramifications of what's in the bill (at least at the time he made his statement, which isn't noted in TPM's story, since it's been modified since.) muck mark, is the language above racist? you clearly believe so; could you share with us why?
Until you are prepared to answer questions you don't get to expect others to answer yours. It's old when people on here try and engage you in honest discussion and you just walk away every time evidence is presented contrary to your position. By the way that's almost all the time.
What gives you that impression? I have made no comment on the law one way or the other. Also, I have been respectful of you and your views lately and really don't deserve to have my moniker basterdized the way you have. Please refrain in the future tia