User Profile: Canada_Goose

Canada_Goose

Member Since: August 31, 2010

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • [4] November 22, 2014 at 3:36pm

    Well, we all know Mr. D’Souza is a player.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/nyregion/dinesh-dsouza-is-out-as-kings-college-president-in-scandal.html?_r=0

    So perhaps he’s offering his services to personally “spank” the POTUS.

  • November 21, 2014 at 3:54pm

    Mr. Reagan declared children of legal parents would not be deported; Mr. Obama declared that parents of legal children will not be deported.

    George H.W. Bush did the same thing. The Senate passed an immigration reform bill that the House refused to take up. (Just what has happened during the Obama administration.) So in 1989 Bush ordered that the Senate bill be adopted as policy, broadening the legal status of families and protecting almost half of the undocumented workers in the country from deportation.

  • November 21, 2014 at 3:53pm

    Actually it’s pretty easy to prove you wrong.

    You said…

    “Before you go and spew the leftist freak line that’s been circulating this week, neither Regan nor Bush 1 did what Obozo is doing. Both of those were interpretations of DULY PASSED LEGISLATION BY CONGRESS THAT THEY SIGNED. There has been NO LAW passed by Congress that Obozo has signed and has sought to clarify with an executive order. Obozo has made up his own law.”

    In 1986, Mr. Reagan and the Congress worked to enact an overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws, granting legal status to as many as 3 million foreign nationals who had come to the country before 1982. However, there was one big problem: The spouse and children of an immigrant who met the law’s requirements might not be covered by the law. In other words, some people who would be in the country legally following the overhaul would have to stand by and watch their family members deported.

    Mr. Reagan went to Congress to amend the law, but Congress wouldn’t budge. Congress explicitly wanted spouses and children who didn’t qualify under the 1986 to be deported while their family members who did would be left behind.

    Mr. Reagan declared he would not allow the policies of the United States to split up families. He used his authority as president to declare that the minor children of parents who had qualified under amnesty would not be deported.

  • November 21, 2014 at 3:46pm

    I used to think Mr. Beck, when he was at FNC, was the most hateful right wing political pundit in the media. I have to revise my opinion. Mr. Walsh is new king of hate.

    That is one hate filled screed.

    There is absolutely zero substance here, no legal or constitutional analysis, no historic context, no facts, just pure innuendo, lies and hate.

    I’ll just highlight one blatant error out of many:
    ——————
    “Besides, prosecutorial discretion doesn’t give you the power to grant legal benefits or documentation of any kind to illegal aliens. That is, without a doubt, the sole responsibility of the legislative branch. Obviously.”
    ——————-
    Obviously wrong!

    There is a longstanding, preexisting regulation that governs who gets work authorization; deferred action recipients were included in that regulation. This decision was made long before this administration came into office.

    In reply to the contribution Dear Mr. Obama, It Must Be Good to Be King

    Responses (3) +
  • [3] November 21, 2014 at 3:23pm

    @Citizen

    Wrong!

    In 1986, Mr. Reagan and the Congress worked to enact an overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws, granting legal status to as many as 3 million foreign nationals who had come to the country before 1982. However, there was one big problem: The spouse and children of an immigrant who met the law’s requirements might not be covered by the law. In other words, some people who would be in the country legally following the overhaul would have to stand by and watch their family members deported.

    Mr. Reagan went to Congress to amend the law, but Congress wouldn’t budge. Congress explicitly wanted spouses and children who didn’t qualify under the 1986 to be deported while their family members who did would be left behind.
    Mr. Reagan declared he would not allow the policies of the United States to split up families. He used his authority as president to declare that the minor children of parents who had qualified under amnesty would not be deported.

    Mr. Reagan declared children of legal parents would not be deported; Mr. Obama declared that parents of legal children will not be deported.

    George H.W. Bush did the same thing. The Senate passed an immigration reform bill that the House refused to take up. (Just what has happened during the Obama administration.) So in 1989 Mr. Bush ordered that the Senate bill be adopted as policy, broadening the legal status of families and protecting almost half of the undocumented workers in the country from deportation.

    Responses (1) +
  • [-1] November 21, 2014 at 12:19pm

    Just curious since there is no constitutional provision nor statute that explicitly permits executive orders, are all executive orders unconstitutional?

    For instance, The Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order, one in which the president declared that, once the Union Army reached enslaved blacks held in the Confederacy, they would no longer be held against their will.

    Was that unconstitutional?

    Or how about Franklin Roosevelt’s Executive Order 9066, which led to the internment of Japanese-Americans in camps. That order was challenged, but, in a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court upheld it as a valid exercise of presidential authority.

  • [1] November 21, 2014 at 11:51am

    Hey, who are you calling filthy?
    I protest, I have exceptional personal hygiene :).

  • November 21, 2014 at 11:04am

    Or better yet, why doesn’t Mr. Boehner bring the Senate immigration bill for a vote in the House, he has a sizable majority. That would pretty much settle the issue once and for all.

  • November 21, 2014 at 10:54am

    Ok without getting into the constitutional arguments, if it’s so cut and dry then why didn’t the Republicans bring a lawsuit against the POTUS for his DREAM Act executive action since that legislation couldn’t overcome a Senate filibuster and was stuck in congress. Instead they chose to go with suing him over extending the individual mandate deadline during the ACA roll out.

    (Even that lawsuit is bogus since Mr. Boehner can’t find any law firm who take at @ $500/hr)

  • [-4] November 21, 2014 at 10:14am

    Ok genius what laws has he broken?
    And please be specific.

  • [-2] November 21, 2014 at 10:03am

    No thanks, he’s way too conservative for me.

    In fact he’s probably even more conservative than our current Conservative Prime Minister.

  • [-11] November 21, 2014 at 9:48am

    Because the POTUS doesn’t spell the legal justification for the current actions, he may not have been aware that he had the authority until he undertook the Justice Department and ICE review of current laws and statutes. Or he could have been speaking more broadly in terms of suspending deportation indefinitely for all illegal immigrants. In any case the POTUS has been talking about taking action if congress didn’t act for about a year already, so how is this suddenly a surprise.

    The current action is actually quite narrow in scope and duration.

    In any case, even if it is a flip flop that doesn’t in itself make it unconstitutional. Which is the current argument Mr. Beck and The Blaze appear to be pushing.

    Responses (8) +
  • November 20, 2014 at 7:52pm

    Actually the American people pulled a Gruber by re electing Mr. Issa.

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] November 20, 2014 at 4:15pm

    Your point actually doesn’t make sense either since by definition executive action is unilateral otherwise what’s the point right? So the crux of your argument is: Is it constitutional? Pretty much everyone agrees that it is because if it wasn’t why didn’t Boehner and the Republicans sue the POTUS for his DREAM act expansion and instead chose to go with extending the individual mandate deadline lawsuit?

    Since what the POTUS will do tonight is most likely extend the DREAM act deportation halt to a broader class of immigrants, if this wasn’t considered illegal then how is it illegal now?

  • [1] November 20, 2014 at 4:11pm

    Ok I took your advice, Mr. Beck is such a flake that I often have trouble following precisely what point he’s trying to make.

    So I reread the article three times and still have the same conclusion.

    This is the money quote….

    “Which is it, Mr. President?” Beck demanded. “How can you say these things? When he ran in 2008, he ran against executive orders. He said the president cannot do these things. And he was quoted saying, ‘I’m a constitutional law scholar so I know the Constitution, and this is a violation of the Constitution.’”
    Beck said if the president announces he is going to take executive action on immigration, it is an “impeachable offense,” and that is according to the president’s prior statements on the matter.

    “He’s basically saying what [Johnathan Gruber] has been saying: ‘You’re stupid,’” Beck remarked. “‘I just told you for the last seven years I can’t do any of these things. It’s against our traditions. It’s against our Constitution. It’s a violation of our laws. It’s wrong to do it. It would make me an emperor. I’ve just said that for the last seven years. And you people are so stupid, I’m going to do it and make one speech, and you will swallow it.’”

  • [3] November 20, 2014 at 2:54pm

    This is perhaps the dumbest argument Mr. Beck has ever made. And that in itself is telling.

    Putting aside the actual constitutional arguments and precedents for and against various types of executive action, Mr. Beck is essentially arguing that what makes any executive action illegal or “an impeachable offense” is simply previous statements by the POTUS that he wouldn’t take such action because he believed it was beyond his authority.

    So forget objective reasoning, the constitution, rule of law, legal statutes, or precedents. If a POTUS publicly flip-flops on his view of his legal authority he’s clearly refusing to enforce the law and should be impeached.

    Right?

    Responses (1) +
  • November 19, 2014 at 5:13pm

    True to form The Blaze scours the internet for any “racially charged” story no matter how big or how insignificant.

    From Ferguson to Norfolk, from Treyvon Martin to a county clerk in Buena Vista, Michigan.

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/25/michigan-clerk-apologizes-for-calling-black-town-official-arrogant-nr-says-shes-far-from-being-prejudiced/

    Of course the resulting comments are always predictable, which begs the question – why do they do it?
    I guess they can’t get enough.

    Responses (5) +
  • [3] November 18, 2014 at 5:17pm

    @Tom

    Best one I heard: If Obama came out in favor of oxygen the Republicans would all suffocate.

  • [1] November 18, 2014 at 4:56pm

    @bozo

    Ironically the internet was created by the US government and turned over to the private sector.

    But I digress.
    —————–
    Question: Is America’s electric grid the most advanced and up to date in the highly regulated electric industry? OF COURSE IT IS NOT. It is waaayyyy out of date.
    _________

    Well you are correct American doesn’t have the most advanced electric grid in the world, it has the second best China actually has the most advanced.

    As far as your characterization of US electric industry as being highly regulated it’s actually classified by experts in this field as Deregulated/Partially Deregulated.

    And last but not least, which country is the most efficient in terms of Electric Capacity Utilization? It’s Korea @60% which has a national monopoly utility structure (US is @ 47%).

    http://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/electricity/pdf/intl_sg.pdf

  • [1] November 18, 2014 at 3:05pm

    So its ok to whip your 4 year old boys across their scrotums as long as the damage is only a cut or a scratch?

    From the police report:

    The beating allegedly resulted in numerous injuries to the child, including cuts and bruises to the child’s back, buttocks, ankles, legs and scrotum, along with defensive wounds to the child’s hands. Peterson then texted the boy’s mother, saying that one wound in particular would make her “mad at me about his leg. I got kinda good wit the tail end of the switch.”

    http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/shutdown-corner/vikings-star-adrian-peterson-indicted-for-reckless-or-negligent-injury-to-a-child-210420668.html

123 To page: Go