2012 Poll

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

What is terrifying is having Eric Holder as AG. It is terifying to have an Attorney General who doesn't care about the law and just does whatever he feels like doing. He has no problem with sanctuary cities. He thinks it's fine for cities to snub their nose at federal law and ignore immigration laws. That is fine with Holder. But when states try to enforce federal law, Holder sues them and has the gall to say these states are "interfering with federal law".

And then there is the case of the guys intimidating voters in what a long-time civil rights activist called the "worst case of voter intimidation he had ever seen". But Holder dropped the charges simply because of the color of the defendants skin. If that's not terrifying to you then I don't know what is.

While Holder may certainly have problems to worry about, the Black Panther thing being one of them, this post is just too rich top to bottom.

When "states" try to enforce federal law he sues "them?" Them and states are both plural. Examples please. Or are you just trying to make it sound worse than it is to try to score a point? I bet the house on the latter. It's what you guys do.

And who was the last attorney general? And you're worried about an AG who doesn't follow the law and just does whatever he feels like doing?

Consistency will surely never accidentally be listed in the "plus" column when discussing the conservative mindset.

Thanks for a good laugh, Rupert.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Consistency will surely never accidentally be listed in the "plus" column when discussing the conservative mindset.

Thanks for a good laugh, Rupert.

The liberal mindset is short on the logic necessary to analyze the conservative mindset. Quite a conundrum there.

And the laughter always echoes from the asylum, though they don't sound too happy. Wait until November -- then the real fun begins.

Most people in the country have now correctly sized up this administration as socialist. They don't like it. They prefer freedom. And, wow, are you liberals going to get a rude awakening. I personally can't wait -- I'll be watching the big TV with some popcorn and a cold beer, smiling from ear to ear as America sends this joke of a Congress packing.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by joeydb

The liberal mindset is short on the logic necessary to analyze the conservative mindset. Quite a conundrum there.

And the laughter always echoes from the asylum, though they don't sound too happy. Wait until November -- then the real fun begins.

Most people in the country have now correctly sized up this administration as socialist. They don't like it. They prefer freedom. And, wow, are you liberals going to get a rude awakening. I personally can't wait -- I'll be watching the big TV with some popcorn and a cold beer, smiling from ear to ear as America sends this joke of a Congress packing.

The opposition party does that at every midterm. Glad you will get the enjoyment out of thinking you discovered some new political creature that has been invented and will happen for the first time ever because of Obama. Good for you.

And a conservative making fun of a liberal for being short on logic. Talk about a smile from ear to ear as I can't stop laughing at a total lack of self-awareness on your part.

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

The opposition party does that at every midterm. Glad you will get the enjoyment out of thinking you discovered some new political creature that has been invented and will happen for the first time ever because of Obama. Good for you.

Yeah but odds were strong in 2008 that the Dems would hold 2010. Not too many times in history has the winning party replaced a disaster like Dubya.

It's kind of frightening how bad both sides of the aisle are.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

While Holder may certainly have problems to worry about, the Black Panther thing being one of them, this post is just too rich top to bottom.

When "states" try to enforce federal law he sues "them?" Them and states are both plural. Examples please. Or are you just trying to make it sound worse than it is to try to score a point? I bet the house on the latter. It's what you guys do.

And who was the last attorney general? And you're worried about an AG who doesn't follow the law and just does whatever he feels like doing?

Consistency will surely never accidentally be listed in the "plus" column when discussing the conservative mindset.

Thanks for a good laugh, Rupert.

Examples please? Huh? Have you ever heard of Arizona? I said "states" rather than "state" because Holder's policy is obviously to sue states that pass this type of legislation and there will be more to follow. Other states are already in the planning stages of coming up with similar laws to Arizona. Are you suggesting that Holder doesn't sue states that try to enforce immigration laws?

You are just arguing over semantics. Here is an analogy. Let's say a guy is prejudice against black people and this guy is about to open a business. He needs to hire employees and he starts interviewing people. He interviews a black woman who is well-qualified but he doesn't hire her because she is black. Would it be incorrect for me to say he won't hire "black people"? Would you say, "Hey Rupert. Why did you say "black people" plural? It should not have been plural. So far there was only one black person (the only one interviewed so far) that he didn't hire. Why are you making it plural? Are you trying to make it sound worse?"

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Examples please? Huh? Have you ever heard of Arizona? I said "states" rather than "state" because Holder's policy is obviously to sue states that pass this type of legislation and there will be more to follow. Other states are already in the planning stages of coming up with similar laws to Arizona. Are you suggesting that Holder doesn't sue states that try to enforce immigration laws?

You are just arguing over semantics. Here is an analogy. Let's say a guy is prejudice against black people and this guy is about to open a business. He needs to hire employees and he starts interviewing people. He interviews a black woman who is well-qualified but he doesn't hire her because she is black. Would it be incorrect for me to say he won't hire "black people"? Would you say, "Hey Rupert. Why did you say "black people" plural? It should not have been plural. So far there was only one black person (the only one interviewed so far) that he didn't hire. Why are you making it plural? Are you trying to make it sound worse?"

I'm not arguing semantics. I'm arguing your words. You wrote them. Own them.

Obviously I have heard of Arizona, and that is one, so I was right about you trying to make it sound worse than it was. It's not like it was all that surprising to see it coming. When there is a "them" and when there are "states," then you can feel free to talk about it like it's some kind of epidemic. When there is only one example, talk about that one example. If it's so shockingly horrific, you shouldn't need to try to make it sound worse than it is.

Until then, though I know this isn't high on your list of priorities, a little intellectual honesty would be a good addition to your repertoire.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I'm not arguing semantics. I'm arguing your words. You wrote them. Own them.

Obviously I have heard of Arizona, and that is one, so I was right about you trying to make it sound worse than it was. It's not like it was all that surprising to see it coming. When there is a "them" and when there are "states," then you can feel free to talk about it like it's some kind of epidemic. When there is only one example, talk about that one example. If it's so shockingly horrific, you shouldn't need to try to make it sound worse than it is.

Until then, though I know this isn't high on your list of priorities, a little intellectual honesty would be a good addition to your repertoire.

That is ridiculous. If I beat up an old lady and stole her purse, would it be incorrect for you to say, "Rupert beats up old ladies and steal their purses."?

I guess technically it shouldn't be plural if I only beat up one old lady and stole her purse. However, I would still consider the statment correct and I don't think too many would argue the semantics. I think people would get the point.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

That is ridiculous. If I beat up an old lady and stole her purse, would it be incorrect for you to say, "Rupert beats up old ladies and steal their purses."?

I guess technically it shouldn't be plural if I only beat up one old lady and stole her purse. However, I would still consider the statment correct and I don't think too many would argue the semantics. I think people would get the point.

I dunno -- do you make a habit of it, or did you do it once?

That's the difference between singular and plural nouns and verbs. The former means it happened once, the latter means it happened over and over.

So you tell me, did you beat up an old lady and steal her purse, or do you beat up old ladies and steal their purses?

Has Holder sued a state for its law or has Holder sued states for their laws?

You may think it's a minor thing and that "people would get the point," but the only point I get so far is that you're acting hysterical and feel the need to make something sound worse than it is to try to score a point. I get it. It's what you guys do, which is why I saw it coming earlier this afternoon and was shock, unsurprisingly right.

Ponderous.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I dunno -- do you make a habit of it, or did you do it once?

That's the difference between singular and plural nouns and verbs. The former means it happened once, the latter means it happened over and over.

So you tell me, did you beat up an old lady and steal her purse, or do you beat up old ladies and steal their purses?

Has Holder sued a state for its law or has Holder sued states for their laws?

You may think it's a minor thing and that "people would get the point," but the only point I get so far is that you're acting hysterical and feel the need to make something sound worse than it is to try to score a point. I get it. It's what you guys do, which is why I saw it coming earlier this afternoon and was shock, unsurprisingly right.

Holder couldn't do it more than once. Only one state has passed such a law so far. I think it is correct to use the plural form if something is policy. For example, let's say a police department has a policy of arresting prositiutes but not the customers. Now let's say they implement a new policy where they are arresting the "Johns" too. Let's say that they just implemented this policy and have arrested one "John" so far. Would it be incorrect to say that this police department arrests "people" for soliciting prostitutes? Of course that would be a correct statement. Just because they've only arrested one person so far, that doesn't make it incorrect to use "people" plural. Their policy is to arrest "people" for soliciting prostitutes. It is a correct statement to say they arrest "people" for soliciting prosititutes just like it is a correct statement to say Holder sues "states" that try to enforce immigration laws. It's irrelevant that it has only happened once. The policy is in place.

By the way, I have never been convicted of beating up an old lady and stealing her purse. (I have a good lawyer). That was a joke.