Death is too good for this monster

[Damocles]

Oh yeah, Ramusessen consistently polled in favor of the Shrub & company and every neocon mind fart AGAINST the average of every other valid American pollster group....no big surprise with this latest BS.

So if you happen to be in good old Joe's jurisdiction, and during your trial one of his deputies starts rifling through your attorneys papers as they sit on his desk, don't sweat it...... a self proclaimed prick like Webway will come along to tell you that your Bill of Rights are just quaint pieces of paper.

Do you have a link to these supposed polls "for" GWB? Rasmussen had him at about 27% approval at one time. I'd love to see your evidence for their "always" polling for him in the positive.

They were also more accurate than Gallup in the past two Presidential elections.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Do you have a link to these supposed polls "for" GWB? Rasmussen had him at about 27% approval at one time. I'd love to see your evidence for their "always" polling for him in the positive.

They were also more accurate than Gallup in the past two Presidential elections.

Not a problem....pollster.com You study it enough and you begin to see a pattern forming for Ramussen on the various subjects....and it wasn't in the low 20's all the time.

As for the 2000 and 2004 election....polls don't do cheating.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

No, I am saying he sets the sheriff's office policies. What, do you think everything is spelled out to them by the county's lawmakers?

Take a civics class. Executive branch officials execute the laws, but they make up most of their own policies. There's no law commanding that they restrain patients. This is a policy of the MCSO for which Arpaio is responsible. He has the authority to change the policy.

Well, then that would mean that you're incorrect, so own your failure.

You really need to stop just FEELING and start thinking.
Let me know how that works. OK!!

 

[Damocles]

Not a problem....pollster.com You study it enough and you begin to see a pattern forming for Ramussen on the various subjects....and it wasn't in the low 20's all the time.

As for the 2000 and 2004 election....polls don't do cheating.

So your answer is no, you don't have any link that shows that Rasmussen was "always" in the positive for Bush, because it doesn't exist. Nor do you have an answer for the fact that they are more accurate than Gallup in results.

You don't like what their polls say so you pretend that they are less accurate than others. Zogby is one of the least accurate polls, you probably think they are greatly "accurate" because they suck in the direction of your lean.

 

[Timshel]

Well, then that would mean that you're incorrect, so own your failure.

You really need to stop just FEELING and start thinking.
Let me know how that works. OK!!

No, you are incorrect and a dumbfuck who apparently has no clue how the government works. Unless Maricopa County is some sort of oddity, the sheriff set sheriff's office policy. That's why Arpaio is able to dress prisoners in pink and do all the other things for which he has gained attention.

 

[Timshel]

I can't find MCSO policy manual. But here are Boulder's and El Paso's, first two google hits "sheriff office policy manual".

http://www.bouldercounty.org/sheriff/pdf/BCSO_Policy.pdf

From page 9...

Policy statements are approved and issued by the Sheriff. The Sheriff may amend or cancel directives at any time. In the Sheriff's absence, the Undersheriff may issue policies and procedures, which may be amended upon the return of the
Sheriff.

http://shr.elpasoco.com/NR/rdonlyres/FBFDF57F-E559-4A67-9D36-E01A50ED8FEC/0/201POLICY021307.pdf

From Page 1...

Policy statements will be approved and issued by the Sheriff. The Sheriff may amend or cancel policy directives at any time. In the Sheriff’s absence, the Undersheriff may issue policies and procedures, which may be amended upon the return of the Sheriff.

Look at that, it is boilerplate. Now stfu as if you know what you are talking about and, as I said before, go take a civics class.

 

[christiefan915]

Sounds like it. Good god, the Phoenix News Times published Arpaio's home address. Yeah, a very unbiased source. These people have broken the law, yet our government has done nothing to stop them.

Har, arpaio the hypocritical schmuck with a superiority complex.

"As he explained to the media at a press conference at Thomas' office, what led to the lawsuit was the publication of Arpaio's name and address on New Times Web site back in 2004.

He took the pretense of anger so far, in fact, that he actually held up the December 21, 2006, edition of our newspaper for all to see -- the one on whose cover we published Arpaio's home address.

To continue the facade that what we had done was very bad, he even shook the copy of the paper a little as he glared at this reporter in the first row.

That's right. To make his point that the publication of his address has put his family "in jeopardy," Arpaio revealed his Fountain Hills address in a most blatant way:

He showed it in big, bold type to a roomful of camera-wielding print and TV journalists..."

Also, if he's so worried about bad people finding out where he lives, why did he -- as the New Times lawsuit mentions -- mail out Partisan Nomination Petitions to citizens across the county last month that contained his home address.

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2008/04/sheriff_reveals_his_home_addre.php

 

[Timshel]

Har, arpaio the hypocritical schmuck with a superiority complex.

"As he explained to the media at a press conference at Thomas' office, what led to the lawsuit was the publication of Arpaio's name and address on New Times Web site back in 2004.

He took the pretense of anger so far, in fact, that he actually held up the December 21, 2006, edition of our newspaper for all to see -- the one on whose cover we published Arpaio's home address.

To continue the facade that what we had done was very bad, he even shook the copy of the paper a little as he glared at this reporter in the first row.

That's right. To make his point that the publication of his address has put his family "in jeopardy," Arpaio revealed his Fountain Hills address in a most blatant way:

He showed it in big, bold type to a roomful of camera-wielding print and TV journalists..."

Also, if he's so worried about bad people finding out where he lives, why did he -- as the New Times lawsuit mentions -- mail out Partisan Nomination Petitions to citizens across the county last month that contained his home address.

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2008/04/sheriff_reveals_his_home_addre.php

Haha, he has no case.

But the attack on the New Times is just a diversion. The article contains quotes from the MCSO acknowledging that the incident happened. Obviously, the sheriff's office understand how to sue the paper, which I am sure they would do if the quotes were fabricated. Nothing whatsoever is offered by these intellectually lazy fools to establish that the story is not true. They just attack the messenger.

The credibility of a source is important but you can't simply ignore a source because they happen to have an opinion on a subject. That's stupid and lazy.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

No, you are incorrect and a dumbfuck who apparently has no clue how the government works. Unless Maricopa County is some sort of oddity, the sheriff set sheriff's office policy. That's why Arpaio is able to dress prisoners in pink and do all the other things for which he has gained attention.

Gee, now my feelings are hurt and I have no idea how I'm going to recover from the trauma.
But since it's obvious that you have no idea of how Policy is set, I guess I'll just have to consider that your naive.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I can't find MCSO policy manual. But here are Boulder's and El Paso's, first two google hits "sheriff office policy manual".

http://www.bouldercounty.org/sheriff/pdf/BCSO_Policy.pdf

From page 9...



http://shr.elpasoco.com/NR/rdonlyres/FBFDF57F-E559-4A67-9D36-E01A50ED8FEC/0/201POLICY021307.pdf

From Page 1...



Look at that, it is boilerplate. Now stfu as if you know what you are talking about and, as I said before, go take a civics class.

It's a shwme that you have such a narrow view of how the world runs; but since it seems that your lack of knowledge is what you cling to, you'll just have to consider stumbling around blind.

I really would like to see you force me to stfu.

 

[Timshel]

It's a shwme that you have such a narrow view of how the world runs; but since it seems that your lack of knowledge is what you cling to, you'll just have to consider stumbling around blind.

I really would like to see you force me to stfu.

No need to force you since you are not saying anything anyway.

Sheriff's are primarily responsible for their office's policies. Honestly, I always assumed that was common knowledge. But this won't be the first time I have been guilty of overestimating a right wingers intelligence. Do you have something to counter that other than vague and unsubstantiated assertions?

 

[Timshel]

Gee, now my feelings are hurt and I have no idea how I'm going to recover from the trauma.
But since it's obvious that you have no idea of how Policy is set, I guess I'll just have to consider that your naive.

I have given you examples of how policies are typically set. You are free to show me my error by sourcing some examples of whatever method you believe policy is set. Well, not really free, since you are unlikely to find any sources. Heck, maybe you could tell us how you think policies are set.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

No need to force you since you are not saying anything anyway.

Sheriff's are primarily responsible for their office's policies. Honestly, I always assumed that was common knowledge. But this won't be the first time I have been guilty of overestimating a right wingers intelligence. Do you have something to counter that other than vague and unsubstantiated assertions?

you're again confusing general policy with specific policy....the OP claimed and strongly suggested that the sheriff personally chained this woman....he did not, his latina officer did....

we don't even know if arapaio is the one who personally set that policy, for all we know it existed before he was sheriff....

you need to understand the difference between a department policy and the act of an individual because you are clearly confused

 

[Timshel]

you're again confusing general policy with specific policy....the OP claimed and strongly suggested that the sheriff personally chained this woman....he did not, his latina officer did....

I am glad you are not retarded like usfreedom. I think you might want to rephrase. He has a specific policy in place. All I can guess, is you are saying he did not mean for it to be applied to pregnant women? See below.

we don't even know if arapaio is the one who personally set that policy, for all we know it existed before he was sheriff....

That's certainly possible, which is part of the reason why I said before, if he had come out and said it was an oversight that he intended to correct then your argument would have merit. He has not done that. He is owning the policy.

you need to understand the difference between a department policy and the act of an individual because you are clearly confused

Policies and procedures are meant to guide officers in action. They are no different than orders, although it might be a little easier to misapply a policy than a direct order. Again, if he had said it was an oversight...

If the officer acted outside of policy you could argue that it was the individual officers fault. That is not the case.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Not a problem....pollster.com You study it enough and you begin to see a pattern forming for Ramussen on the various subjects....and it wasn't in the low 20's all the time.

As for the 2000 and 2004 election....polls don't do cheating.

So your answer is no, you don't have any link that shows that Rasmussen was "always" in the positive for Bush, because it doesn't exist. Nor do you have an answer for the fact that they are more accurate than Gallup in results.

Oh stop the bullshit, would you please! DO YOUR OWN FUCKING HOMEWORK! Look at what went down during the second term of the Shrub...do the comparisons.....READ! Then we can have a conversation based on shared knowledge. Until then, please stop this childish "literal translation" stall tactics used by our resident neocon numbskulls...you're better than that when you want to be.

You don't like what their polls say so you pretend that they are less accurate than others. Stop lying, I pointed out to FACTS based on the EVIDENCE of the last 8 years as shown in the link I provided. TFB if you don't like it, but you can't logically or factually disprove it. Zogby is one of the least accurate polls, you probably think they are greatly "accurate" because they suck in the direction of your lean.

I never said anything about Zogby, so your supposition and conjecture is so much hot air.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

I am glad you are not retarded like usfreedom. I think you might want to rephrase. He has a specific policy in place. All I can guess, is you are saying he did not mean for it to be applied to pregnant women? See below.



That's certainly possible, which is part of the reason why I said before, if he had come out and said it was an oversight that he intended to correct then your argument would have merit. He has not done that. He is owning the policy.



Policies and procedures are meant to guide officers in action. They are no different than orders, although it might be a little easier to misapply a policy than a direct order. Again, if he had said it was an oversight...

If the officer acted outside of policy you could argue that it was the individual officers fault. That is not the case.

ever wonder that maybe he isn't saying anything more due to possible litigation? you have no idea if the department changed the policy...or not....

the issue is over a year old, yet nothing has become of it....there is probably a good reason for that....it is also interesting how only one newspaper has reported this

 

[Timshel]

ever wonder that maybe he isn't saying anything more due to possible litigation? you have no idea if the department changed the policy...or not....

Yeah, I did think of that. It's possible, but there is no reason to assume it. Further, I am not so sure being unrepentant is the best way to protect the SO from litigation.

the issue is over a year old, yet nothing has become of it....there is probably a good reason for that....it is also interesting how only one newspaper has reported this

It's a year old and there still nothing to establish that they intend to change their policy.

Nothing has come of it? I assume you mean a lawsuit? There was no physical injury. She is an illegal immigrant, so that would seriously hurt any case she might bring and I don't know if she has any standing to sue. Does not make what happened right.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

No need to force you since you are not saying anything anyway.

Sheriff's are primarily responsible for their office's policies. Honestly, I always assumed that was common knowledge. But this won't be the first time I have been guilty of overestimating a right wingers intelligence. Do you have something to counter that other than vague and unsubstantiated assertions?

HA HA HA HA HA
You want me to counter a inane assumption?? :lmao:

OK. You're wrong, now considered yourself countered.

Now, stop being a Concrete Commando and follow through on your comment. :yermom:

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I have given you examples of how policies are typically set. You are free to show me my error by sourcing some examples of whatever method you believe policy is set. Well, not really free, since you are unlikely to find any sources. Heck, maybe you could tell us how you think policies are set.

I charge a fee, to provide an education to the uninformed, and reading your osts, I would have to charge you an awful lot.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

you're again confusing general policy with specific policy....the OP claimed and strongly suggested that the sheriff personally chained this woman....he did not, his latina officer did....

we don't even know if arapaio is the one who personally set that policy, for all we know it existed before he was sheriff....

you need to understand the difference between a department policy and the act of an individual because you are clearly confused

shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

He's happy in his delusions.