Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Where does it say that they "apologized" for the law? It says they discussed it- the exact wording from the article is below:
"Posner said in addition to talks on freedom of religion and expression, labor rights and rule of law, officials also discussed Chinese complaints about problems with U.S. human rights, which have included crime, poverty, homelessness and racial discrimination.
He said U.S. officials did not whitewash the American record and in fact raised on its own a new immigration law in Arizona that requires police to ask about a person's immigration status if there is suspicion the person is in the country illegally."
I'm sure the admin officials that made the comments haven't read the law, even though its only 10 pages. That is their tactic. They can badmouth it and say all sorts of slander against it until finally forced to read it. Then they can bury the "I'm mistaken" on page 27 where no one will read it and after the PR damage to Arizona has already been done.
Hint.... If you are going to tell lies about what people have said, its better just to completely make up some random lie and not provide a link because then the person will need to search before they find out its not a link. When you tell a lie then provide a link showing you are telling a lie, it makes it so much easier for the reader to tell you are lying.....
Where does it say that they "apologized" for the law? It says they discussed it- the exact wording from the article is below:
"Posner said in addition to talks on freedom of religion and expression, labor rights and rule of law, officials also discussed Chinese complaints about problems with U.S. human rights, which have included crime, poverty, homelessness and racial discrimination.
He said U.S. officials did not whitewash the American record and in fact raised on its own a new immigration law in Arizona that requires police to ask about a person's immigration status if there is suspicion the person is in the country illegally."
Where does it say that they "apologized" for the law? It says they discussed it- the exact wording from the article is below:
"Posner said in addition to talks on freedom of religion and expression, labor rights and rule of law, officials also discussed Chinese complaints about problems with U.S. human rights, which have included crime, poverty, homelessness and racial discrimination.
He said U.S. officials did not whitewash the American record and in fact raised on its own a new immigration law in Arizona that requires police to ask about a person's immigration status if there is suspicion the person is in the country illegally."
Bringing up Arizona's new immigration law in the context of America's own human rights record wholly and completely insinuates that the Administration views the law with contempt. Obama wouldn't bring up the American victory on D-Day in a discussion on how to lose wars would he? Of course not, because D-Day was a resounding victory for the United States that no one can reasonably dispute. So why would the AZ law come up in a discussion on human rights if there was not a concern that the Administration felt was worthy of discussing?
Why, oh why, is it impossible for those on the left to see this guy for what he really is? Why do liberals apologize for him through circumvention and semantical back doors?
Bringing up Arizona's new immigration law in the context of America's own human rights record wholly and completely insinuates that the Administration views the law with contempt. Obama wouldn't bring up the American victory on D-Day in a discussion on how to lose wars would he? Of course not, because D-Day was a resounding victory for the United States that no one can reasonably dispute. So why would the AZ law come up in a discussion on human rights if there was not a concern?
Why, oh why, is it impossible for those on the left to see this guy for what he really is? Why do liberals apologize for him through circumvention and semantical back doors?
Where did it say that Obama bought it up. It said officials bought it up. Why not read what is written instead of reading between the lines and making up what you thing was written.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
