Fark off, Rupert. You don't get a vote.

Those of us who do decided it would be a good thing to "limit" the powers of the Executive Branch... all the way back to "equal to Judicial and Legislative". Checks & balances. No more royal decrees signing statements.

Frankly, as an Obama man, some of his picks have annoyed and/or pissed me off so far.

Not this one.

/Love me some unattributed opinion pieces. Very swaying.

I'm no Obama fan at all, but this is a helluva choice.

crank up the "conservative" outrage machine. They won't have time to decide why they are outraged yet, but they can at least get started.

So... WSJ has finally gone completely over the edge.

Someone should tell Murdoch that a printed version of FoxNews won't work in the long run, because Fox viewers can't read.

Wait, WSJ/Murdoch is pissed that Obama is going to stop the trend towards making the president a dictator? What the hell. Is there anything that Obama does or will do that they won't get pissed off about?

GAT_00: Is there anything that Obama does or will do that they won't get pissed off about?

Um....that'd be no.

Someone from the "stroke of the pen law of the land" days...This should be interesting.

PANIC !
no wait
aren't the right already in full panic mode?
can it get worse?

/a friend of mine truly believes that obama's presidency will be worse than bush's - these people have gone round the bend

This is bad news... for all the powers that Bush amassed in his 8 years.

You can't really take an article that has this line in it seriously:



But Mr. Yoo was acting in good faith in response to the CIA's request for legal clarity, while leaving the policy choices to the war fighters.

the stranger part is that the 3 branches are supposed to be check and balances, on each other.

it is rational to expect the power to sway back and forth, not to be static
we have seen the executive branch expand and now we will see it contract
this is rational and expected

nice to see the system working as intended

/PANIC!

GAT_00: Wait, WSJ/Murdoch is pissed that Obama is going to stop the trend towards making the president a dictator? What the hell. Is there anything that Obama does or will do that they won't get pissed off about?

I'm sure they'd be interested to see the powers of the president lim-

Dancin_In_Anson: Someone from the "stroke of the pen law of the land" days...This should be interesting.

oh, nevermind

bulldg4life: oh, nevermind

Forgot about that, didn't you?

Dancin_In_Anson: Forgot about that, didn't you?

What, that you were cheering on a dictator for the past 8 years?

Does Paul Bergala speak for her or something? Or, since he was a presidential aid and she worked in legal...that makes them have the exact same thought process?

If the guilt by association thing is so easy...why didn't you just slam the ACLU while you were at it?

bulldg4life: Does Paul Bergala speak for her or something? Or, since he was a presidential aid and she worked in legal...that makes them have the exact same thought process?

Oh...I forgot, she resigned in protest after Begala made the comment...My bad.

This guilt by association thing is fascinating. It's so easy to slam whoever you want.

I also like how you completely ignore everything she has written about executive power and instead base her entire mindset off a quote from someone else.

Another day, another right-winger pleading for an unchecked monarchy instead of a constitutional republic.

kronicfeld: Another day, another right-winger pleading for an unchecked monarchy instead of a constitutional republic.

well, the monarch needs to have the (R)ight letter after his name, or else "independents" will be furious.

Look guys. I know it's hard for you to accept, but your guy is no different than any of the other Masks in the Pageant and once you settle in and realize it, the softer the letdown will be for you.

Dancin_In_Anson: Look guys. I know it's hard for you to accept, but your guy is no different than any of the other Masks in the Pageant and once you settle in and realize it, the softer the letdown will be for you.

How about you pay a lick of attention to the discussion and go tell that to the Wall Street Journal, which apparently missed the memo that Obama is just as bad as all those other people you conveniently fail to ever criticize, and which is crying about Obama giving a job to someone who advocates for a less powerful executive branch, as though he is going to abdicate all his power to Harry Reid or something.

madmann: Fark off, Rupert. You don't get a vote.

I thought he got one, just like everyone else. Unless he's given up his US passport recently.

Anyway, ol' Rupe doesn't give a damn about the politics of his newspapers and TV channels - so long as they attract lots of readers, viewers and advertisers. The (London) Times has politics that meander over the years, according to the prevailing view of their readership.

If the WSJ and Fox news are barking mad, that's because their readers and viewers are, not because Murdoch is...

I don't mind the "he's as bad as the others" bit. but we've already reached the "OMFG ! He wears pants ! OMFG ! He at a hamburger ! OMFG ! He looked at fish !" stage and he's not in office yet. After giving the last guy 8 years before grudgingly acknowledging that "he spent too much" maybe this sudden concern is a little hard to swallow.

If Obama wants to be a weak president, fine. But when we get that terrorist attack that Joe Biden promised, I don't think the people are going to be all too happy about having a weakling for a president.

Wall$treet CONservative Journal.

yep, you'll get nothing but the Truth from those Mafia Thugs.

kronicfeld: How about you pay a lick of attention to the discussion and go tell that to the Wall Street Journal, which apparently missed the memo that Obama is just as bad as all those other people you conveniently fail to ever criticize, and which is crying about Obama giving a job to someone who advocates for a less powerful executive branch, as though he is going to abdicate all his power to Harry Reid or something.

I don't think Obama could cede power to Harry Reid even if he tried. Reid would get so flustered that he'd sell the capitol to Obama for a Snickers and pocket change.

SkinnyHead: If Obama wants to be a weak president, fine. But when we get that terrorist attack that Joe Biden promised, I don't think the people are going to be all too happy about having a weakling for a president.

I don't even want to think about the horrors of having a weak leader in the face of modern terrorism. Could you imagine following someone who was taken advantage of by someone like... oh, say... Tina Fey for example ? We'd be doomed.

SkinnyHead: If Obama wants to be a weak president, fine. But when we get that terrorist attack that Joe Biden promised, I don't think the people are going to be all too happy about having a weakling for a president.

the President gets his power from The People. if he's a weak President, its only because the People are not behind him.
now if you're george bush, you obviously don't have the People behind you do you violate our Constitution and do your own thing.
sounds like something a Rich Frat Rat would do.

runalong bush,

you and your kind's time is done.

have a nice old age and subsequent dirt nap on the dust heap of History.

SkinnyHead: If Obama wants to be a weak president, fine. But when we get that terrorist attack that Joe Biden promised, I don't think the people are going to be all too happy about having a weakling for a president.

FTFM

Are the terrorists more dangerous than the Nazis and the Soviet Union? If not, then why does the president need more power than the presidents that defeated those people? If yes, then why is America so weak that it can be defeated by people who on the day of their greatest victory killed less people then died that same month in car accidents?

Hehehe...

An OPINION piece, where the farking author was afraid to sign their name to what they wrote?

So, basically, the WSJ now has all the credibility of Farkers like Orange Crush, Skookum, and HOV?

Do people actually pay farking MONEY to read the WSJ?

kronicfeld: How about you pay a lick of attention to the discussion and go tell that to the Wall Street Journal, which apparently missed the memo that Obama is just as bad as all those other people you conveniently fail to ever criticize

Who said 'bad' besides you? I just said no different. Obama will crank out Executive order just like all the others have. You call this 'bad'...I call this 'status quo'.

SkinnyHead: I don't think the people are going to be all too happy about having a weakling for a president.

I, for one, am unhappy that this means the President won't unilaterally have the power to ban the teaching of "intelligent design" from schools.

opiumpoopy: madmann: Fark off, Rupert. You don't get a vote.

I thought he got one, just like everyone else. Unless he's given up his US passport recently.

Well whaddya know.... honestly had never heard he ever gave us his Australian citizenship before. Thanks.

/Actual facts? In MY Fark?

Or, gave UP.

/Failfecta in play.

GAT_00: Wait, WSJ/Murdoch is pissed that Obama is going to stop the trend towards making the president a dictator? What the hell. Is there anything that Obama does or will do that they won't get pissed off about?

Murdoch is a fascist in the classical corporate/state sense, so consolidating power to the presidency into an eventual dictatorship is kind of relevant to his interests.

He only won because most Democrats couldn't stomach the idea of a woman president anyway.

Linux_Yes: 10 DAYS!

Damned straight.

It's been a long eight years watching the monkey play with the grenade.

Jesus, who penned that article for the WSJ? It's full of fail and pitifully winning for the return of a dictator.

seminole87: I certainly can't stomach the idea of a woman president

How come?

Dancin_In_Anson: Who said 'bad' besides you? I just said no different. Obama will crank out Executive order just like all the others have. You call this 'bad'...I call this 'status quo'.

There is nothing wrong with executive orders in general. You are really showing to everyone you have no idea what you are talking about.

Do you even understand what the president does?

You are trying to argue that it is somehow unconstitutional for the president to tell his departments what to do.

You are really showing your ignorance or just partisan blind attacks ignoring all reality.

Alas; there goes my hope the new White House Counsel will allow President Obama to declare the Republican leadership to have been conspiring against the Constitution and have them taken them off to be interrogated at GITMO as enemy combatants until they reveal the extent of the conspiracy's membership.

Tragic.

Utterly tragic.

I am inconsolable.

General Zang: Do people actually pay farking MONEY to read the WSJ?

The paper itself isn't that bad. The editorial page, however, is a sucking pit of WHARGARBLE.

Dancin_In_Anson: Who said 'bad' besides you? I just said no different. Obama will crank out Executive order just like all the others have. You call this 'bad'...I call this 'status quo'.

Umm learn a little before you jabber your mouth off:

Executive orders may also be issued at the state level by a state's Governor. U.S. Presidents have issued executive orders since 1789, usually to help direct the operation of executive officers.

OMG presidents directing his own departments!!!! This must be stopped!!

DIA that is actually the JOB of the president.

The joke on everyone is that Obama doesn't believe any laws apply to him either, which makes him just like our current POTUS.

Sure, he puts on a public show. So what? This is the Chicago Machine we're talking about. They understand image. It's how Barry got this far.