"I have not reviewed it in detail..."
If not in detail, then how HAS she reviewed it?"
"I certainly know of it."
I know of the theory of relativity, too, but I haven't studied it in detail. I wouldn't caount on me being expert enough to either support or contradict said theory.
Senator McCain then observed that having not read the law, she must not feel qualified to take a stand on it.
WRONG! She is perfectly willing to take a stand on something she has not studied.
As reported in Real Clear Politics: Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano admits she hasn't read the Arizona immigration law, but passed judgment on it anyway. "That's not the kind of law I would have signed," she declared.
So...if she hasn't read the law, how does she know that?
Oh, and what on earth is this "...as you know and are well aware..." stuff?
"I believe it's a bad law enforcement law. (Say what?) I believe it mandates and requires local enforcement and puts them in a position many do not want to be placed in," Napolitano said.
"It mandates and requires local enforcement..." I have read that sentence with emphasis on every possible syllable, and it STILL makes no sense.
"...puts them in a position many do not want to be placed in." What position is that? Many what? What position do they WANT to be placed in?
"When I was dealing with laws of that ilk, most of the law enforcement agencies in Arizona at that time were opposed to such legislation," she claimed.
When did Janet Napolitana EVER deal with laws of that ilk? What laws were there of that ilk with which she allegedly dealt? What does, "...of that ilk..." mean, anyway? What does "...at that time..." mean? "...opposed to such legislation?" Such as what?
I think there is ample evidence that Janet Napolitano and Eric Holder are related somehow.
(If you don't get the reference, check it out HERE.)
Come on, people! If you're going to evade, at least evade in sentences that make sense.
How else will you be able to remember all the things you've said?
Or is that the point, after all?
10 comments:
What she heard as a liberal went directly to the prefrontal cortex that elevates higher thinking.
Does she actually have a pre-frontal cortex?
Actually, it's a pre-judgmental cortex...
This is liberalism in a nutshell. They don't need to "read the law" or study anything. There's also no need for debate.
They know what's good for everybody else...
I hope the GOP is smart enough to use this stuff this fall.
Silverfiddle: Well, I hope so, too, but I don't hold out as much hope as some. Republicans seem to be mired in professional politicianism as much as the Democrats. They oppose some of the right things, but they don't seem to have the strength to take a firm, sustainable stand on anything...particularly the Constitution.
The left has a vested interest in perpetuating the myth that Tea Partiers are racists in an effort to hold onto that segment of their slanted and sick coalition.
The leftists need their prejudices such as calling us republicans "racists, and homophobes. Their prejudices make the world simple and understandable for them. Without them, they would have to deal with reality… and that’s the last thing they want. Because in reality, none of the crap they believe in works.
The fact remains that the left is terrified of the Tea Parties.
The left’s strategy of labeling us conservatives as racists and rightwing lunatics is clearly not working but they seem unable or unwilling to change tactics. Maybe soon as they see all those disenchanted democrats who are starting to feel "buyers remorse" joining the Tea Party movement their minds will be a changing.
They don't care what's in the bill- the goal is to misrepresent and plow through- till the next election, get Obama re-elected; doing whatever must be done to gain the votes in spite of overwhelming unpopularity with legitimate voters!
Joe, If your looking for logic in this crowd, you won't find it, so don't waste your brain power in trying to find it.....stay well.....
My oh my such talk!
Oh well heres my thought for today. Sorry if I may have changed the subject Even if it was a bit much for my virgin ears..
Well, Arlen Specter was a scummy jerk... and it's good to see him gone. What a waste of humanity, always babbling on about what a fighter he was, while he only fought against the people that kept him in office. Apparently the people finally got smart and dumped his sorry butt. For once, it's good to see someone that chooses himself over his duty to the electorate get his come-uppance. Of course he'll live well off of the taxpayers he screwed for so long and you can bet he'll still be trashing the people so he can continue his fifteen minutes of fame. It's who DEMOCRATS are and what they do.
Now lets see what we can do in November. This could be the start of something big... really big.
Seriously, do you honestly think any of the libs have read the new bill? I doubt it. They are so quick to judge and lay blame that they just cannot find the time or someone intelligent enough to explain the bill after they have read it.
We are not dealing with rational, and cognitive and/or lucid people, here we are dealing with Dems.
I'll bet they've read it, but it's so much easier to continue to distort it if you haven't read it, isn't it??
Post a Comment