Bio not provided
@spamis Plus, and it's a big plus, Reagan's order was a temporary deferment, since at the time Congress was not in session, and the newly passed law itself was somewhat ambiguous as to how to treat the children. His order clearly stated that once Congress addressed the issue, one way or the other, he'd act accordingly. Something similar took place with Bush's EO, which didn't deal with kiddies, but with people from war torn nations who also fell through a whole in a quickly passed law. Again, his EO was only a temporary deferment, until such time as Congress could address the issue.
4 months, 1 week ago on Conversation @ http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120334/obama-immigration-order-legal-bush-and-reagans-were
@KurtSilverfiddle @JohnWiseman So, I see that choice number two applies. Thanks.
There are only three reasons why someone would try to equate the EO's written by Reagan and Bush 41 with this evening's festivities. One, the person positing this theory is merely parroting a talking point he's heard, and is too lazy to have done his own research which would have pointed to some glaring and substantive differences. Two, the person who wrote this is attempting to spin this clear violation of Presidential obligation and clear abuse of the office which he currently holds. In short, this argument represents a clear case of dishonesty. Three, the author is mentally retarded in some fashion. Those are the choices, lazy, lying, stupid.
I am not familiar with Danny Vinik, nor have I previously read anything written by Danny. So I am not sure which of those three applies. My suspicion is laziness, but I wouldn't rule out dishonesty or idiocy either.
@1-800-Guns4You Sorry, I just can't get past the part of that where I'd be forced to say, "President Biden."
Poor girl, she was absent the day they taught law in her law school. So who appointed this moron to the bench in the first place.
1 year, 8 months ago on State judge says Detroit bankruptcy doesn’t honor Obama, cancels bankruptcy; Michigan appeals ruling…
What a bunch of sissies the Rangers and their fans are. Dupuis didn't even hit Del Zotto, and it followed after all a race to the puck down in the Ranger's Zone after all. What wasn't shown during that exchange with Cooke was Nash's slash at Cooke from the bench, which is at least an overlooked 5 minute major for initiating a fight while not actually on the ice. The Rangers and their fans are constantly whining about how the other teams are not penalized and how everyone else plays dirty, and in this one instance, Dupuis was called for a penalty that wasn't one, and Nash got away with his crap. Maybe Torterella can squirt a few tears about how a team that consistently wins is arrogant, or maybe he should concentrate on making his team actually play better.
1 year, 11 months ago on Lundqvist Fine After Pulling Hamstring, Addresses Cooke's Antics