Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   Daily Caller reporter completes the final stage of his Fox News interview by heckling the President Obama on live television   (politico.com ) divider line
    More: Dumbass, President Obama, Brian Stelter  
•       •       •

5757 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Jun 2012 at 8:05 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



468 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-17 01:23:12 AM  
o5iiawah: Dan the Schman: o5iiawah: Dan the Schman: It's not like he created a law out of whole cloth, he issued an order to enforce a law that Republicans proposed but couldn't get through Congress.

if the DREAM act hasn't passed through congress, then it isn't law.
The power to create, amend or dissolve laws is granted to the congress, not the president. So says article 1, section 1 of the supreme law of our country.

You can get butthurt about this all you want about how republicans are delusional, stupid, irrational and any other pejorative you want. The fact remains is that you have no argument on this.

So he doesn't have the power to issue executive orders?

The president can not issue an executive order for the justice department to act on a bill which has not been passed into law.



http://www.rense.com/general79/bu.htm

Origins Creating The
US Department Of Homeland
Security, By Executive
Order Was Illegal
Jim Kirwan
11-19-7



The sole branch of this government that is responsible for creating legislation is the legislative branch the Congress of the United States. However - the US Department of Homeland Security was created directly by Presidential Executive Order No 13228, below.

"By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:"
George W. Bush is claiming a "right under the Constitution" that does NOT exist!
Article One, Section 1. of the United States Constitution says: " All legislative powers herein shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives." There is no mention anywhere of the "right" of the Executive to create anything like the largest single agency this government has ever had - as this 'department' absorbed 22 separate existing agencies (that were created by congress) into one that answers only to the executive.
Therefore the 'creation' of Homeland Security - is in direct violation of Article One, Section 1, of the US Constitution, as the executive branch had no authority to create any legislation - much less whole departments of the government - only the congress can do this under the Constitution: Therefore - this Executive Order is itself unconstitutional on its face and must be rescinded! Please see the full text of this illegal order below, as issued by the White House on Oct. 8, 2001
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/10/20011008-2.html
 
2012-06-17 06:23:20 AM  

Blink: We really need a Whack-a-Troll option in these threads.


The ignore button works just fine.
 
2012-06-17 06:33:19 AM  

eddiesocket: badhatharry: This is not that complicated. Congress made laws about how to deal with illegal immigrants. Obama said, "fark all that. I'm doing it my way." Congress has been made irrelevant. This is not how things are supposed to work in America. He is dictating the law of the land from the White House lawn. I call that dictatorship. He doesn't have to suspend elections to be a dictator. That comes latter.

You see, I'm a liberal Obama supporter, and I admit I don't know enough yet to know if he's violating the Constitution. Your argument started out well, but then you devolved into pants-shiatting nonsense about Marshall Law, leaving me no choice to conclude you're a fool, and your earlier, more rational-sounding argument must be dismissed as well. It's why you guys are still losing, despite the fact that the economy's still in the tank. Maybe you guys have some good ideas; hell, it's likely you have some good ideas. But they're drowned out by talk of birth certificates and dictatorships and evil homosexshals and calling women whores. You guys are spinning out. Do better. It's no good for the country to have only one viable party. It leads to absolute power and corruption. I only hope that when you lose in November, you'll finally settle the fark down and come back strong in 16 as grownups. For all our sakes.


THIS.
 
2012-06-17 06:41:01 AM  

chuggernaught: You don't have to respect the man, but you do have to respect the office. It is unacceptable and rude to interrupt a person giving a speech.

Additionally, what happened to all the pricks lining up to scream about not back talking the President while we are at war? Guess that doesn't count when it's a black president.

/bunch of farking racists.


when george washington was president, thomas jefferson orchestrated a whisper campaign alleging that washington was senile and that hamilton was the defacto head of the administration. politics has always been a nasty business, and neither side has a problem with it unless it's their guy getting smeared, unfortunately
 
2012-06-17 07:56:06 AM  

Hideously Gigantic Smurf: the time is right for the election-stealing industry to make a comeback.


LOL.. you are adorable.
 
2012-06-17 08:04:21 AM  

The Lone Gunman: Chimperror2: It's not like he threw a shoe at him or anything.

Really? What American journalist threw a shoe at a President?

The journalist who threw a shoe at Bush did it because he was pissed off that he ransacked his country just to outdo his dad, who was a better President.

The guy from the Caller did it because he wants to be famous and because he wants to jump on the 'No respect under any circumstances for Obama' train.

....

But go on, please tell us how the Democrats and Republicans are the exact same.


They are. You, for instance, just excused the behavior in one case because you disagree with the target and agreed with the assaulter's reasons; but in the other case, you agree with the target and disagree with the assaulter's reasons. The guy from the Caller and the dude who threw the shoe feel exactly the same way towards their targets and could give you deeply felt reasons why they feel the way they do. It doesn't matter whether you personally agree with one assaulter's reasons, and dismiss the other assualter's reasons. In the end, they are both the same.

Neither one of them had any business disrespecting the Office.

It's wrong to excuse one, because you hate the guy, and condemn the other, because you love the guy.
 
2012-06-17 08:25:13 AM  

ExperianScaresCthulhu: They are. You, for instance, just excused the behavior in one case because you disagree with the target and agreed with the assaulter's reasons; but in the other case, you agree with the target and disagree with the assaulter's reasons. The guy from the Caller and the dude who threw the shoe feel exactly the same way towards their targets and could give you deeply felt reasons why they feel the way they do. It doesn't matter whether you personally agree with one assaulter's reasons, and dismiss the other assualter's reasons. In the end, they are both the same.

Neither one of them had any business disrespecting the Office.

It's wrong to excuse one, because you hate the guy, and condemn the other, because you love the guy.


Um, no. While I think shoe-throwing-guy was hilarious, I also think it was wrong. That said, claiming the two incidents are exactly the same is profoundly retarded.

"This is a farewell kiss from the Iraqi people, you dog", yelled al-Zaidi in Arabic as he threw his first shoe towards the U.S. president.[1] "This is for the widows and orphans and all those killed in Iraq",

ExperianScaresCthulhu: The guy from the Caller and the dude who threw the shoe feel exactly the same way towards their targets


Munro felt that President Obama had invaded his country?
Munro thought he was an Arab?
Munro interrupted President Obama because he believed President Obama had killed a lot of Iraqis?

What the fark are you talking about?

ExperianScaresCthulhu: It doesn't matter whether you personally agree with one assaulter's reasons, and dismiss the other assualter's reasons. In the end, they are both the same.


Actually that matters a lot, you damn jackass.

First of all, here's another way they're different. Munro was incredibly rude and unprofessional, but he didn't assault President Obama.

But back to the meat of the issue, no, again, seriously, the same action can be excused or condemned depending on the reason.

Tom shooting Bill in the face because Tom wants Bill's money: Tom is a murderer and should be punished with lengthy incarceration.
Tom shooting Bill in the face because Bill has a gun to Tom's kid's head: Tom is completely justified and should be allowed to go free.

Same action, Tom shooting Bill, same passionate belief by Tom that he's completely entitled to do that to get what he wants, two very different realities as to whether or not Tom is actually entitled to do that.

So no, stop pretending like whether or not people genuinely believe they're entitled to act the way they do is the same as whether they actually are entitled, because it makes you sound like a tit that doesn't understand how the world works.

There's also the fact that the backlash against Shoe Thrower was immediate and ended up being hilariously turned around on him:

President Bush ducked twice, avoiding being hit by the shoes. Al-Zaidi was then pulled to the floor[26] by another journalist,[27] before being grabbed by Prime Minister Maliki's guards, kicked, and rushed out of the room. White House spokeswoman Dana Perino was hit in the face by a microphone boom sent flying by a presidential bodyguard resulting in a clearly visible black eye.[28]

Some Iraqi reporters present at the scene offered apologies to President Bush. "Thanks for apologizing on behalf of the Iraqi people. It doesn't bother me", Bush joked: "If you want the facts, it's a size 10 shoe that he threw."[29] When asked about the incident by another reporter, Bush said "It's a way for people to draw attention. I don't know what the guy's cause was. I didn't feel the least bit threatened by it."[30] When later asked to reflect on the incident, Bush said "I didn't have much time to reflect on anything, I was ducking and dodging." "I'm not angry with the system. I believe that a free society is emerging, and a free society is necessary for our own security and peace", he added.[31] "I don't think that you can take one guy throwing his shoe as representative of the people of Iraq", argued White House Press Secretary Dana Perino.[32]

The Turkish company that made the shoes thrown at Bush, Ramazan Baydan, experienced a surge in sales. Orders for 300,000 pairs were received in just 1 week.[33]
Cartoosh's View

On 1 December 2009, Muntadhar al-Zaidi, who first shoed Bush, got shoed himself in Paris by an exiled Iraqi journalist .[34] Zaidi later said "He stole my technique."[35]


Still, there are substantial differences.

1. Obama did not invade America based on false pretenses.
2. I expect better behaviour from people who actively seek credentials on domestic journalism than I do from foreign journalists reporting on a one-off event in the country that was invaded.
3. It would have been funnier if Munro had thrown his shoe.
 
2012-06-17 08:58:15 AM  

ExperianScaresCthulhu: It's wrong to excuse one, because you hate the guy, and condemn the other, because you love the guy.


Another thing is all the outrage at how "the left" thought the shoe throwing was hilarious. I thought it was hilarious, as did many here, but not because of "Ha! Yeah! Nail that asshole with a shoe!" but because of Bush's reaction which was both stunningly agile and charmingly comedic. It was almost endearing. If there was one thing Bush could handle, it was subtle yet hilarious facial cues and comedic timing. His debate reaction to The Looming Gore in 2000 was comedy gold too.
 
2012-06-17 10:47:54 AM  

ExperianScaresCthulhu: The Lone Gunman: Chimperror2: It's not like he threw a shoe at him or anything.

Really? What American journalist threw a shoe at a President?

The journalist who threw a shoe at Bush did it because he was pissed off that he ransacked his country just to outdo his dad, who was a better President.

The guy from the Caller did it because he wants to be famous and because he wants to jump on the 'No respect under any circumstances for Obama' train.

....

But go on, please tell us how the Democrats and Republicans are the exact same.

They are. You, for instance, just excused the behavior in one case because you disagree with the target and agreed with the assaulter's reasons; but in the other case, you agree with the target and disagree with the assaulter's reasons. The guy from the Caller and the dude who threw the shoe feel exactly the same way towards their targets and could give you deeply felt reasons why they feel the way they do. It doesn't matter whether you personally agree with one assaulter's reasons, and dismiss the other assualter's reasons. In the end, they are both the same.

Neither one of them had any business disrespecting the Office.

It's wrong to excuse one, because you hate the guy, and condemn the other, because you love the guy.


I don't remember a single liberal "excusing" the shoe guy. A lot of us thought it was funny, because Bush was a piece of shiat, but none of us thought it was excusable. And certainly, if an American reporter had done it, no one would've defended him as being in the right (though we still would've thought it was funny).
In this instance, some conservatives are acknowledging that what the Daily Caller guy did was wrong, (while still having enjoyed watching up), but a few like Tucker Carlson and some Fark commenters are actually pretending that he didn't do anything wrong at all. They're saying things like "what's wrong with a reporter asking the President a question?", as if that were the issue. It's laughably dishonest and shows their utter lack of integrity. It would be like if some liberals after the shoe incident were saying, "what? It's wrong to be angry at the President?"
 
2012-06-17 12:40:37 PM  
jso2897


Smartest
Funniest

2012-06-16 10:39:37 PM

bogatti: What amazes me is not that Bammy was asked a legitimate question, but that he could find time to get his arse off the golf course for an hour, or some retard celebrity overpriced house for a night.
But then he was giving away 800,00 more jobs to border jumping pieces of crap so they could drive down wages even more..
Why does hate real Americans ?

i18.photobucket.com

Last time check, Buffalo President don't hate Real Americans.
Don't know about you, paleface wetback.

Maybe you forgot you and the Aztecs murdering each others children to make it rain, corn crops.
land disputes and from what we read, just for the fun of it.. you murdered your way into America also.
 
2012-06-17 01:16:31 PM  

bogatti: Bammy


images.stanzapub.com

"You got a cold?"
 
2012-06-17 01:54:37 PM  

robrr2003: Hideously Gigantic Smurf: the time is right for the election-stealing industry to make a comeback.

LOL.. you are adorable.


And right.
 
2012-06-17 02:02:09 PM  

Hideously Gigantic Smurf: robrr2003: Hideously Gigantic Smurf: the time is right for the election-stealing industry to make a comeback.

LOL.. you are adorable.

And right.


Who's right about what now?
 
2012-06-17 03:12:05 PM  

bogatti: Maybe you forgot you and the Aztecs murdering each others children to make it rain, corn crops.
land disputes and from what we read, just for the fun of it.. you murdered your way into America also.


Did you just claim Sitting Bull waged war on the Aztecs to sacrifice their children?
Or that the Lakota Sioux practiced child sacrifice?

Also why are you talking to Sitting Bull as if he's still alive?
 
2012-06-17 03:17:00 PM  

thamike: Hideously Gigantic Smurf: robrr2003: Hideously Gigantic Smurf: the time is right for the election-stealing industry to make a comeback.

LOL.. you are adorable.

And right.

Who's right about what now?


Hideously Gigantic Smurf is right about the election-stealing industry making a comeback, implying that that the Republicans are alienating such a large percentage of the demographics with their hostility that that is the only way they can win.

Which is sad because it seriously underestimates the raw power of human stupidity.
 
2012-06-17 03:38:42 PM  

Dr. Mojo PhD: bogatti: Maybe you forgot you and the Aztecs murdering each others children to make it rain, corn crops.
land disputes and from what we read, just for the fun of it.. you murdered your way into America also.

Did you just claim Sitting Bull waged war on the Aztecs to sacrifice their children?
Or that the Lakota Sioux practiced child sacrifice?

Also why are you talking to Sitting Bull as if he's still alive?


His geographical ignorance is skullf*cking his historical ignorance while his misguided arrogance is drunkenly filming it.
 
2012-06-17 11:49:45 PM  

ExperianScaresCthulhu: The Lone Gunman: Chimperror2: It's not like he threw a shoe at him or anything.

Really? What American journalist threw a shoe at a President?

The journalist who threw a shoe at Bush did it because he was pissed off that he ransacked his country just to outdo his dad, who was a better President.

The guy from the Caller did it because he wants to be famous and because he wants to jump on the 'No respect under any circumstances for Obama' train.

....

But go on, please tell us how the Democrats and Republicans are the exact same.

They are. You, for instance, just excused the behavior in one case because you disagree with the target and agreed with the assaulter's reasons; but in the other case, you agree with the target and disagree with the assaulter's reasons. The guy from the Caller and the dude who threw the shoe feel exactly the same way towards their targets and could give you deeply felt reasons why they feel the way they do. It doesn't matter whether you personally agree with one assaulter's reasons, and dismiss the other assualter's reasons. In the end, they are both the same.

Neither one of them had any business disrespecting the Office.

It's wrong to excuse one, because you hate the guy, and condemn the other, because you love the guy.


Ah the old 'We hate what we think you think' argument. I did not say that the show-throwers actions were excusable. I'm saying that they're explainable.

That OTHER CONSERVATIVE REPORTERS are saying that this guy's actions are inexcusable says a lot more than anything I could.

And again, the two are NOT the same because the Iraqi reporter was angry that Bush had RANSACKED his country and KILLED his countrymen. The Caller reporter wanted to annoy the President. The Iraqi reporter was not, unlike the Caller reporter, trying to score points with his buddies.

I always love how when a GOP does something inexcusable, their allies excuse it because the Dems are the EXACT same. Which they're not. And you guys really need to stop this.
 
2012-06-18 12:10:19 AM  

The Lone Gunman: Ah the old 'We hate what we think you think' argument. I did not say that the show-throwers actions were excusable. I'm saying that they're explainable.


They're also funny. Let's not lie here; if Munro threw his shoe, it would be kinda funny, because really, who throws their shoe?
 
Displayed 18 of 468 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report