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.

(Washington Examiner)   The Right: Hey you guys remember that theory we've been pushing since about 2001 that the president's powers are nearly unlimited? Yeah, about a week ago Tuesday, we had a sudden epiphany about that, and yeah, never mind   (washingtonexaminer.com) divider line 119
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

5305 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Nov 2012 at 8:28 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-11-14 05:03:02 PM  
Okay everyone, stand back. I've got this.

*ahem*

"Everything changed after 9/11."

*bows*
 
2012-11-14 05:36:12 PM  
Great article. It's as though the rules are there for allowing you to do what you want to do, not any sort of sustainable, objective, proper, and fair system.
 
2012-11-14 05:36:34 PM  
I've just had an apostrophe...

s8.postimage.org
 
2012-11-14 06:22:06 PM  
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-11-14 06:37:20 PM  
Man, it's too bad no one warned them that a Democrat would eventually win the Presidency.
 
2012-11-14 06:41:29 PM  

Mentat: Man, it's too bad no one warned them that a Democrat would eventually win the Presidency.


Pffft. Foresight and circumspection are for heathens and traitors.
 
2012-11-14 06:50:24 PM  
If we just shot all politicians full of sodium penthanol and forced them to give 20 minute speeches once it kicked in, I'd be all for political discussion.


As it is? Election's over. Shut up for awhile.
 
2012-11-14 07:16:45 PM  
I thought the rulewas that presidents I agree with have unlimited power, but presidents I disagree with are traitors trampling on the constitution.
 
2012-11-14 07:19:36 PM  

serial_crusher: I thought the rulewas that presidents I agree with have unlimited power, but presidents I disagree with are traitors trampling on the constitution.


It is. SWITCH PLACES!1!!1!!1

southdakotapolitics.blogs.com
 
2012-11-14 07:38:53 PM  

Ed Finnerty: Mentat: Man, it's too bad no one warned them that a Democrat would eventually win the Presidency.

Pffft. Foresight and circumspection are for heathens and traitors.


That's not how I read that
 
2012-11-14 08:17:32 PM  
i don't give a sh*t when or how they got this epiphany, rolling back the bush-era power grab was a 2008 obama campaign promise and it's high time he made good on it.
 
2012-11-14 08:26:25 PM  

thomps: i don't give a sh*t when or how they got this epiphany, rolling back the bush-era power grab was a 2008 obama campaign promise and it's high time he made good on it.


If you actually have paid attention he HAS in some massive ways, reforming FISA, disclaiming the infamous WH memos about "enemy combatants" and massively reforming FOIA. It's subtle to the casual observer but seismic if you know this area of law
 
2012-11-14 08:30:37 PM  

Magorn: thomps: i don't give a sh*t when or how they got this epiphany, rolling back the bush-era power grab was a 2008 obama campaign promise and it's high time he made good on it.

If you actually have paid attention he HAS in some massive ways, reforming FISA, disclaiming the infamous WH memos about "enemy combatants" and massively reforming FOIA. It's subtle to the casual observer but seismic if you know this area of law


Yeah, but drones
 
2012-11-14 08:30:43 PM  
I'm sure they would have felt the exact same if Romney had been elected. Scout's honor!
 
2012-11-14 08:31:03 PM  
If only you were warned that you wouldn't be in office forever and one day someone from the opposite party would be sitting in that chair with all those powers you wanted.
 
2012-11-14 08:31:58 PM  

Mentat: Man, it's too bad no one warned them that a Democrat would eventually win the Presidency.


How could they with a permanent Republican majority?

/permanent Republican majority
 
2012-11-14 08:33:06 PM  
Really though?
 
2012-11-14 08:35:22 PM  

Lost Thought 00: Magorn: thomps: i don't give a sh*t when or how they got this epiphany, rolling back the bush-era power grab was a 2008 obama campaign promise and it's high time he made good on it.

If you actually have paid attention he HAS in some massive ways, reforming FISA, disclaiming the infamous WH memos about "enemy combatants" and massively reforming FOIA. It's subtle to the casual observer but seismic if you know this area of law

Yeah, but drones


Bingo.
 
2012-11-14 08:39:04 PM  

Magorn: thomps: i don't give a sh*t when or how they got this epiphany, rolling back the bush-era power grab was a 2008 obama campaign promise and it's high time he made good on it.

If you actually have paid attention he HAS in some massive ways, reforming FISA, disclaiming the infamous WH memos about "enemy combatants" and massively reforming FOIA. It's subtle to the casual observer but seismic if you know this area of law


i'll admit to not being very well educated on the subject, if someone could point me to a good summary of what he's done to roll back executive branch powers, i'd love to read it.
 
2012-11-14 08:39:54 PM  

Ed Finnerty: Okay everyone, stand back. I've got this.

*ahem*

"Everything changed after 9/11."

*bows*


I think you're on to something... After 9/11 #1 (2001), the president was imbued with mystical powers BUT after 9/11 #2 (2012), it was like in a cartoon where a concussion can be healed by a second concussion: the powers disappeared. Obama is just so clueless that he is trying to use his superpowers while being completely unaware that he is impotent.
 
2012-11-14 08:41:31 PM  
I believe the term you're looking for is "Absolute monarchy."
 
2012-11-14 08:42:50 PM  

thomps: Magorn: thomps: i don't give a sh*t when or how they got this epiphany, rolling back the bush-era power grab was a 2008 obama campaign promise and it's high time he made good on it.

If you actually have paid attention he HAS in some massive ways, reforming FISA, disclaiming the infamous WH memos about "enemy combatants" and massively reforming FOIA. It's subtle to the casual observer but seismic if you know this area of law

i'll admit to not being very well educated on the subject, if someone could point me to a good summary of what he's done to roll back executive branch powers, i'd love to read it.


Second. However, I will go look up this FISA and FOIA, though. I need to get my information in order before I let any of my family know I'm turning bluer by the day.
 
2012-11-14 08:43:31 PM  

Ed Finnerty: serial_crusher: I thought the rulewas that presidents I agree with have unlimited power, but presidents I disagree with are traitors trampling on the constitution.

It is. SWITCH PLACES!1!!1!!1

[southdakotapolitics.blogs.com image 720x576]




assets0.ordienetworks.com
 
2012-11-14 08:43:32 PM  
FTA: "...Jennifer Rubin..."

Me: Faaaarrrrtttt!
 
2012-11-14 08:44:33 PM  
We told you so. Cheney was a big fan of the unitary executive theory when they were in the white house. I wonder what he thinks about it now.
 
2012-11-14 08:46:22 PM  
This is he exact conversation on the filibuster right now.
 
2012-11-14 08:46:43 PM  
His prediction, I predict will be full of shiat.

After they get over the shock, they will double the derp. Redistricting, buying more voting machine companies, throwing out voter registrations they'll be working on until the next election, blaming Obama for them not supporting anything, and have their shills like O'Reilly, Limbaugh, and Shrodinger working the media and Internet.

Yawn.
 
2012-11-14 08:49:16 PM  

UberDave: I've just had an apostrophe...

[s8.postimage.org image 479x350]


Glenn Close is in that movie. She is the pirate that gets put in the "Boo" box. Study it out.
 
2012-11-14 08:50:16 PM  

CynicalLA: We told you so. Cheney was a big fan of the unitary executive theory when they were in the white house. I wonder what he thinks about it now.


I wonder if he was naive/partisan enough to think no Democrat could weild it effectively? Or was it "I got mine, fark you" figuring he had it when he needed it and would be dead before it mattered much how it played out afterwards? Or of course, both....
 
2012-11-14 08:51:28 PM  
Typical of these cowards.....
 
2012-11-14 08:52:02 PM  
Remind me again. This is his second term in office, right? His second term? Is there something about second terms and full moons that I am unaware of?
 
2012-11-14 08:54:40 PM  
After FDR's 12-year reign...

I have a hard time taking someone seriously when they use the term "reign" to describe a President's term.
 
2012-11-14 08:56:19 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: After FDR's 12-year reign...

I have a hard time taking someone seriously when they use the term "reign" to describe a President's term.


no kidding, "reign" implies legitimacy, which this usurper most certainly does not have.
 
2012-11-14 08:59:38 PM  
I can't wait until liberals control the supreme court. Obama's win will make that happen.
 
2012-11-14 09:00:15 PM  
A lot of these powers come from the declaration of "War on Terror" that Congress rushed through right after 9/11. If there are terrorists anywhere the U.S military is authorized to shoot them and/or blow them up. I'm surprised people aren't callng for that to be revisited.
 
2012-11-14 09:00:34 PM  
as long as I get my flaming hand of DOOM and kung-fu army of extraordinary magnitude I don't care what ya'll do

photos1.blogger.com
 
2012-11-14 09:07:59 PM  
It's analogous to the epiphany they might soon have about why minority rights are important...
 
2012-11-14 09:08:58 PM  

Harry_Seldon: This is he exact conversation on the filibuster right now.


Don't do away with it. It just needs to go back to the "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" era.
 
2012-11-14 09:10:03 PM  

Leo Bloom's Freakout: CynicalLA: We told you so. Cheney was a big fan of the unitary executive theory when they were in the white house. I wonder what he thinks about it now.

I wonder if he was naive/partisan enough to think no Democrat could weild it effectively? Or was it "I got mine, fark you" figuring he had it when he needed it and would be dead before it mattered much how it played out afterwards? Or of course, both....


It's probably both and it looks like he was planning on it since Nixon.


President Ford, along with his Chief of Staff Donald Rumsfeld and aide Dick Cheney, tried unsuccessfully to stem the tide. Ford vetoed strengthening of the Freedom of Information Act, but was overridden. Campaign finance laws were enacted. Ford's Rockefeller Commission, which conducted a limited review of domestic CIA operations, was overtaken by the much more aggressive Church Committee and other post-Watergate Congressional investigations. The Church Committee published reports on CIA plots to assassinate foreign leaders, mail opening operations, NSA electronic surveillance, FBI's COINTELPRO operations against dissident groups and others, the FBI's harassment of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and more. Deeper secrets, like the CIA's MKULTRA drug-and-hypnosis "mind control" program, and CIA relations with the media, remained only partially exposed.
For some, these exposes and the weakening of the Presidency were not welcome events. Ford White House aide Dick Cheney and his boss Donald Rumsfeld, who both went on to prominent positions in the Bush White House, were among them. Cheney's oft-cited expansive view of Presidential powers derives in part from his experience in the Ford post-Watergate administration.
 

Link
 
2012-11-14 09:10:46 PM  
The right did itself no favors during the Bush presidency. They allowed immeasurable over-reaches of the government because it was "our guy" in charge of the White House. All of a sudden, someone from the other party gets in there with the mechanism in place for Constitutional overreach and the right is in a bind about it.

Big government is big government - even when it is "our guy" in charge of it.
 
2012-11-14 09:10:48 PM  
oi50.tinypic.com
 
2012-11-14 09:11:52 PM  

Dr.Zom: Mentat: Man, it's too bad no one warned them that a Democrat would eventually win the Presidency.

How could they with a permanent Republican majority?

/permanent Republican majority


they thought this was China for a second, one party and all...
 
2012-11-14 09:12:10 PM  

o5iiawah: The right did itself no favors during the Bush presidency. They allowed immeasurable over-reaches of the government because it was "our guy" in charge of the White House. All of a sudden, someone from the other party gets in there with the mechanism in place for Constitutional overreach and the right is in a bind about it.

Big government is big government - even when it is "our guy" in charge of it.


Yep, and no President is going to give up powers for the good of the country.
 
2012-11-14 09:14:32 PM  

clkeagle: [oi50.tinypic.com image 638x509]


you sound like onna them commie marx brothers

/stay in the white house, karl!
 
2012-11-14 09:18:48 PM  

Mentat: Man, it's too bad no one warned them that a Democrat would eventually win the Presidency.


But remember all that talk about the "permanent Republican majority"? It's almost as if it was an idiotic idea promoted by a bunch of complete morons.
 
2012-11-14 09:18:54 PM  

o5iiawah: The right did itself no favors during the Bush presidency. They allowed immeasurable over-reaches of the government because it was "our guy" in charge of the White House. All of a sudden, someone from the other party gets in there with the mechanism in place for Constitutional overreach and the right is in a bind about it.

Big government is big government - even when it is "our guy" in charge of it.


the left is now apologizing for abuses that are even worse. so yeah, bsab
 
2012-11-14 09:19:45 PM  

thomps: Lionel Mandrake: After FDR's 12-year reign...

I have a hard time taking someone seriously when they use the term "reign" to describe a President's term.

no kidding, "reign" implies legitimacy, which this usurper most certainly does not have.


I had done a search on your name to see if anybody had responded to you and gave you the education that you are obviously lacking in regards to what has actually happened...then I read this post, and had a moment of clarity. You are just a ****ing idiot who is trying to troll people by being stupid

I have nothing but pity for you, and hope that you find a better purpose for your life. Going to internet discussion forums like we have here are Fark.com and trolling by being stupid is just pathetic. If you really don't have anything better to do with your life, I suggest you go out, get an education, maybe actually find a purpose for your life. What you are doing now is simply just pathetic and sad. I would say you should live up to your potential, but I am scared to death that this IS the peak of your potential, which just makes me feel bad for humanity...
 
2012-11-14 09:19:51 PM  

Phaeon: thomps: Magorn: thomps: i don't give a sh*t when or how they got this epiphany, rolling back the bush-era power grab was a 2008 obama campaign promise and it's high time he made good on it.

If you actually have paid attention he HAS in some massive ways, reforming FISA, disclaiming the infamous WH memos about "enemy combatants" and massively reforming FOIA. It's subtle to the casual observer but seismic if you know this area of law

i'll admit to not being very well educated on the subject, if someone could point me to a good summary of what he's done to roll back executive branch powers, i'd love to read it.

Second. However, I will go look up this FISA and FOIA, though. I need to get my information in order before I let any of my family know I'm turning bluer by the day.


I was working a FOIA request involving a major government agency when the transition happened, since I knew some of the FOIA analysts well, I was in their office making small talk when Obama's memo on FOIA was distributed a few weeks after the inauguration. thier jaws hit the floor in 203 they'd been told to make all questionable calls on the side of withholding information, that if anything could be potentially classified under a FOIA exception to do that. Obama told them to do the exact opposite: Always err on the side of disclosure, and even when something could be exempted think hard about whether it SHOULD be..
 
2012-11-14 09:22:07 PM  

relcec: the left is now apologizing for abuses that are even worse. so yeah, bsab


Worse than Guantanamo Bay and torture. I you say so.
 
2012-11-14 09:22:21 PM  
No, subby, when did the right say the President's powers are nearly unlimited?

citation?
 
2012-11-14 09:23:57 PM  

Tarl3k: thomps: Lionel Mandrake: After FDR's 12-year reign...

I have a hard time taking someone seriously when they use the term "reign" to describe a President's term.

no kidding, "reign" implies legitimacy, which this usurper most certainly does not have.

I had done a search on your name to see if anybody had responded to you and gave you the education that you are obviously lacking in regards to what has actually happened...then I read this post, and had a moment of clarity. You are just a ****ing idiot who is trying to troll people by being stupid

I have nothing but pity for you, and hope that you find a better purpose for your life. Going to internet discussion forums like we have here are Fark.com and trolling by being stupid is just pathetic. If you really don't have anything better to do with your life, I suggest you go out, get an education, maybe actually find a purpose for your life. What you are doing now is simply just pathetic and sad. I would say you should live up to your potential, but I am scared to death that this IS the peak of your potential, which just makes me feel bad for humanity...


this is absolutely the peak of my potential, if not a moment of glory exceeding my natural limits. i thank you for your pity.
 
2012-11-14 09:25:14 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: No, subby, when did the right say the President's powers are nearly unlimited?

citation?


Google is hard.
 
2012-11-14 09:25:47 PM  

Tarl3k: Going to internet discussion forums like we have here are Fark.com and trolling by being stupid is just pathetic.


youshutyourwhoremouth.jpg
 
2012-11-14 09:26:37 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: No, subby, when did the right say the President's powers are nearly unlimited?

citation?


google "unitary executive theory president bush huge boner for"
 
2012-11-14 09:38:58 PM  

CynicalLA: relcec: the left is now apologizing for abuses that are even worse. so yeah, bsab

Worse than Guantanamo Bay and torture. I you say so.


obama has kept gtmo. he could put the 70 guys on a ship and send them to the navy brig in virginia, but he doesn;t want to.
I mean he has the wherewithall to fight a war without congressional support. surely he can send a supply ship 100 miles of florida to pick up 70 guys.
and I gues I should have said at least as bad. starting a war without authorization of congress, when congress in fact voted specifically not to authorize, then ignoring the war powers act, and then unilaterall legalizing 1.2 million illegal aliens contrary to law and the constituion which clearly vests immigration and naturalization with congress. yes at least as bad as waterboarding 3 men that murdered 3000 americans. and you chear it on.
 
2012-11-14 09:41:01 PM  

thomps: tenpoundsofcheese: No, subby, when did the right say the President's powers are nearly unlimited?

citation?

google "unitary executive theory president bush huge boner for"


google fark brigade never says a word about presedential power abuses after 2009. they love them in fact. google that. you are the same assholes. just on different teams. identical in your craveness and depravity.
 
2012-11-14 09:43:09 PM  

cretinbob: Ed Finnerty: Mentat: Man, it's too bad no one warned them that a Democrat would eventually win the Presidency.

Pffft. Foresight and circumspection are for heathens and traitors.

That's not how I read that


Foreskin and circumcision?
 
2012-11-14 09:43:37 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: FTA: "...Jennifer Rubin..."

Me: Faaaarrrrtttt!


Jennifer Rubin is the new Meg.
 
2012-11-14 09:43:41 PM  

relcec: thomps: tenpoundsofcheese: No, subby, when did the right say the President's powers are nearly unlimited?

citation?

google "unitary executive theory president bush huge boner for"

google fark brigade never says a word about presedential power abuses after 2009. they love them in fact. google that. you are the same assholes. just on different teams. identical in your craveness and depravity.


my craveness is assholes and elbows above the fark brigade. bush abused it, and my initial writing in this thread accused obama of same. apparently he's made significant steps in rolling them back, but its looking like i'm on my own in finding a good summary, which is fine.
 
2012-11-14 09:43:43 PM  

relcec: CynicalLA: relcec: the left is now apologizing for abuses that are even worse. so yeah, bsab

Worse than Guantanamo Bay and torture. I you say so.

obama has kept gtmo. he could put the 70 guys on a ship and send them to the navy brig in virginia, but he doesn;t want to.
I mean he has the wherewithall to fight a war without congressional support. surely he can send a supply ship 100 miles of florida to pick up 70 guys.
and I gues I should have said at least as bad. starting a war without authorization of congress, when congress in fact voted specifically not to authorize, then ignoring the war powers act, and then unilaterall legalizing 1.2 million illegal aliens contrary to law and the constituion which clearly vests immigration and naturalization with congress. yes at least as bad as waterboarding 3 men that murdered 3000 americans. and you chear it on.


yeah lets see, Congress is keeping GITMO open not Obama, do you mean Iraq, which he got us out off, Afganistan, which is winding down (neither of which he got us in) or Libya, which was just us coordinating our movements with nato and not actually having troops on the ground, which Republicans biatched about. And please show me where in the Constitution is illegal immigration brought up.
 
2012-11-14 09:44:18 PM  
No. This article is suggesting that Republicans ought to be allowed to have their cake and eat it too. This article wants Republicans to never suffer consequences, and that is unfair and imprudent.
 
2012-11-14 09:47:35 PM  

relcec: thomps: tenpoundsofcheese: No, subby, when did the right say the President's powers are nearly unlimited?

citation?

google "unitary executive theory president bush huge boner for"

google fark brigade never says a word about presedential power abuses after 2009. they love them in fact. google that. you are the same assholes. just on different teams. identical in your craveness and depravity.


amazing, when the president doesn't start 2 wars under false pretenses, there might be less to talk about concerning presidential power abuses!!

/yeah, there have been a hell of a lot of threads about GITMO/drones where have you been
 
2012-11-14 09:48:04 PM  

relcec: fark brigade never says a word about presedential power abuses after 2009



Challenge accepted....


i.ytimg.com

mmmmm, yeah, that's about right
 
2012-11-14 09:48:43 PM  

ATRDCI: And please show me where in the Constitution is illegal immigration brought up


Article 1, Section 8:

The Congress shall have Power To...To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, ;

The president shall... (Article 2)

take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed
 
2012-11-14 09:52:00 PM  
Let's also not lie to ourselves, "presidential abuse of power" can and does often mean "anything I happen to disagree with that he has done."
 
2012-11-14 09:52:09 PM  

CynicalLA: o5iiawah: The right did itself no favors during the Bush presidency. They allowed immeasurable over-reaches of the government because it was "our guy" in charge of the White House. All of a sudden, someone from the other party gets in there with the mechanism in place for Constitutional overreach and the right is in a bind about it.

Big government is big government - even when it is "our guy" in charge of it.

Yep, and no President is going to give up powers for the good of the country.


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-11-14 09:52:53 PM  

ATRDCI: amazing, when the president doesn't start 2 wars under false pretenses, there might be less to talk about concerning presidential power abuses!!


Congress granted Bush authority to "start those wars"
So as much as you dont like that we went to war ( I dont either) it was Constitutional in that congress authorized force.
 
2012-11-14 09:53:51 PM  

Tman144: CynicalLA: o5iiawah: The right did itself no favors during the Bush presidency. They allowed immeasurable over-reaches of the government because it was "our guy" in charge of the White House. All of a sudden, someone from the other party gets in there with the mechanism in place for Constitutional overreach and the right is in a bind about it.

Big government is big government - even when it is "our guy" in charge of it.

Yep, and no President is going to give up powers for the good of the country.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x1017]


Yeah, came here for that. *fistbump*
 
2012-11-14 09:55:29 PM  
Unlimited?
Except for making speeches and redecorating, I don't recall anything the man can actually do on his own.

I'm not even sure what he's there for. Focal point for the Two-Minute Hate is my best guess.
 
2012-11-14 09:57:58 PM  

o5iiawah: ATRDCI: And please show me where in the Constitution is illegal immigration brought up

Article 1, Section 8:

The Congress shall have Power To...To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, ;

The president shall... (Article 2)

take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed


Yes, and the President is given discretionary power in HOW he executes the law. For example, marijuana remains a schedule 1 drug to the DEA. He could sign an executive order moving it to a schedule 2 or 3 and it would be completely legal. In the case of immigration, he pretty much did the equivalent concerning the kids that would be covered by the dream act. Or do you believe that he should act like he has infinite resources and spend every cent he has chasing down high school kids with weed and immigrant kids brought here without choice because congress didn't explicitly tell him not too?
 
2012-11-14 09:58:33 PM  
But I thought conservatives limited their interpretation of governmental powers to the text of the Constitution. Now you're telling me they'll alter this for political expediency? Color me shocked.
 
2012-11-14 09:58:46 PM  

thomps: I'll admit to not being very well educated on the subject


Thank God you didn't let such a small detail prevent you from criticizing the President.
 
2012-11-14 10:02:36 PM  

The Why Not Guy: thomps: I'll admit to not being very well educated on the subject

Thank God you didn't let such a small detail prevent you from criticizing the President.


sorry, i never hear any news about rescinding presidential powers, i just hear about blowing up american citizens abroad with drones. f*ck me for admitting imperfect knowledge on the internet.
 
2012-11-14 10:02:47 PM  

o5iiawah: ATRDCI: amazing, when the president doesn't start 2 wars under false pretenses, there might be less to talk about concerning presidential power abuses!!

Congress granted Bush authority to "start those wars"
So as much as you dont like that we went to war ( I dont either) it was Constitutional in that congress authorized force.


The CIA confirmed he was told Saddam had no WMDs. I'm pretty sure if FDR had lied about Pearl Harbor to get Congress to approve fighting Japan, we would consider it a war fought under false pretenses, even if Congress approved it.
 
2012-11-14 10:06:24 PM  

Tman144: CynicalLA: o5iiawah: The right did itself no favors during the Bush presidency. They allowed immeasurable over-reaches of the government because it was "our guy" in charge of the White House. All of a sudden, someone from the other party gets in there with the mechanism in place for Constitutional overreach and the right is in a bind about it.

Big government is big government - even when it is "our guy" in charge of it.

Yep, and no President is going to give up powers for the good of the country.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x1017]


My bad.
 
2012-11-14 10:09:37 PM  

thomps: f*ck me for admitting imperfect knowledge on the internet.


Oh get off the cross. You came out swinging, and when you were shown to be wrong you're all "well, I don't know anything about it anyway".

Let me flip it so you understand. I have no idea if you robbed a bank yesterday. I haven't heard anything about it on the news. But I won't let it stop me from accusing you of robbing a bank. Wouldn't that be silly? Or, I could take the 10 seconds necessary to pop over to Google and see if you had or hadn't robbed a bank before shooting my mouth off.
 
2012-11-14 10:10:53 PM  

ATRDCI: o5iiawah: ATRDCI: And please show me where in the Constitution is illegal immigration brought up

Article 1, Section 8:

The Congress shall have Power To...To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, ;

The president shall... (Article 2)

take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed

Yes, and the President is given discretionary power in HOW he executes the law. For example, marijuana remains a schedule 1 drug to the DEA. He could sign an executive order moving it to a schedule 2 or 3 and it would be completely legal. In the case of immigration, he pretty much did the equivalent concerning the kids that would be covered by the dream act. Or do you believe that he should act like he has infinite resources and spend every cent he has chasing down high school kids with weed and immigrant kids brought here without choice because congress didn't explicitly tell him not too?


The controlled substances act is only Constitutional in the shadow of Wickard V. Filburn. I'd like to see both overturned. Congress should have no authority to regulate what a citizen grows on his private property so long as he isn't affecting a navigable waterway with the runoff of his farm.

The dream ACT is a bill and not law. the president has no authority to execute a bill which has not come to his desk.
 
2012-11-14 10:16:24 PM  

The Why Not Guy: thomps: f*ck me for admitting imperfect knowledge on the internet.

Oh get off the cross. You came out swinging, and when you were shown to be wrong you're all "well, I don't know anything about it anyway".

Let me flip it so you understand. I have no idea if you robbed a bank yesterday. I haven't heard anything about it on the news. But I won't let it stop me from accusing you of robbing a bank. Wouldn't that be silly? Or, I could take the 10 seconds necessary to pop over to Google and see if you had or hadn't robbed a bank before shooting my mouth off.


he extended the PATRIOT act, pushed for the renewal of FISA, has been an active proponent of extrajudicial assassinations. sorry if i don't notice the things that are "subtle to the casual observer" but do see the things that are publicly denounced by his own base.
 
2012-11-14 10:20:09 PM  

o5iiawah: ATRDCI: o5iiawah: ATRDCI: And please show me where in the Constitution is illegal immigration brought up

Article 1, Section 8:

The Congress shall have Power To...To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, ;

The president shall... (Article 2)

take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed

Yes, and the President is given discretionary power in HOW he executes the law. For example, marijuana remains a schedule 1 drug to the DEA. He could sign an executive order moving it to a schedule 2 or 3 and it would be completely legal. In the case of immigration, he pretty much did the equivalent concerning the kids that would be covered by the dream act. Or do you believe that he should act like he has infinite resources and spend every cent he has chasing down high school kids with weed and immigrant kids brought here without choice because congress didn't explicitly tell him not too?

The controlled substances act is only Constitutional in the shadow of Wickard V. Filburn. I'd like to see both overturned. Congress should have no authority to regulate what a citizen grows on his private property so long as he isn't affecting a navigable waterway with the runoff of his farm.

The dream ACT is a bill and not law. the president has no authority to execute a bill which has not come to his desk.


he isn't executing that bill anymore than he would be executing a marijuana legalization bill if he were to move mary jane down in priority. He realistically has to balance what he can enforce with his resources. Not surprisingly, this is influenced by his beliefs as to what should be enforced. At the point where he doesn't believe those who would be covered under the dream act should be charged, he makes it a lower priority,
 
2012-11-14 10:37:01 PM  

relcec: obama has kept gtmo. he could put the 70 guys on a ship and send them to the navy brig in virginia. but he doesn;t want to.


Citation Needed.

I mean he has the wherewithall to fight a war without congressional support. surely he can send a supply ship 100 miles of florida to pick up 70 guys.
and I gues I should have said at least as bad. starting a war without authorization of congress, when congress in fact voted specifically not to authorize, then ignoring the war powers act,


Look up what NATO means, specifically the T, and then ask yourself why congressional authorization might not be necessary every single time there's a NATO mission. I've watched you get your ass handed to you over this again and again, but apparently hating Obama is more important than being correct.

and then unilaterall legalizing 1.2 million illegal aliens contrary to law and the constituion which clearly vests immigration and naturalization with congress.

This didn't happen. It's not even remotely the truth. You're either a liar or too ignorant to be discussing the issue. Which is it?

yes at least as bad as waterboarding 3 men that murdered 3000 americans. and you chear it on.

And there's the answer.
 
2012-11-14 10:42:10 PM  

thomps: The Why Not Guy: thomps: f*ck me for admitting imperfect knowledge on the internet.

Oh get off the cross. You came out swinging, and when you were shown to be wrong you're all "well, I don't know anything about it anyway".

Let me flip it so you understand. I have no idea if you robbed a bank yesterday. I haven't heard anything about it on the news. But I won't let it stop me from accusing you of robbing a bank. Wouldn't that be silly? Or, I could take the 10 seconds necessary to pop over to Google and see if you had or hadn't robbed a bank before shooting my mouth off.

he extended the PATRIOT act, pushed for the renewal of FISA, has been an active proponent of extrajudicial assassinations. sorry if i don't notice the things that are "subtle to the casual observer" but do see the things that are publicly denounced by his own base.


One. One extrajudicial assassination unless you know of any more than I do. And it's been acknowledged that that was done to prevent having to go to war in Yemen. ALL presidents have been proponents of and used extrajudicial assassination precisely because of that reason: To kill certain individuals without having to go to war in countries that can't or won't allow us to pursue them via legal means. I don't like it and neither does anybody else with two brain cells to rub together, but that doesn't mean it doesn't go on and won't until the end of time.

And extending the Patriot Act has been a foregone conclusion since it was given that name. In today's climate, do you think ANYONE is going to go on record as "opposing the PATRIOT ACT"? You might as well expect a politician to go on record opposing the God save fluffy bunnies act. You should at least try to understand how politics works before you excoriate the outward results of certain actions.
 
2012-11-14 10:58:15 PM  

thomps: he extended the PATRIOT act, pushed for the renewal of FISA, has been an active proponent of extrajudicial assassinations. sorry if i don't notice the things that are "subtle to the casual observer" but do see the things that are publicly denounced by his own base.


I will gladly admit President Obama has not perfect on the issue. But if you recall, your original claim was that he hasn't done anything to roll back the Bush era power grab, when in fact he has done quite a bit.
 
2012-11-14 10:58:16 PM  

o5iiawah: ATRDCI: And please show me where in the Constitution is illegal immigration brought up

Article 1, Section 8:

The Congress shall have Power To...To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, ;

The president shall... (Article 2)

take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed


If you think immigration and naturalization are the same thing, you have no business being part of the debate.
 
2012-11-14 11:02:42 PM  

The Why Not Guy: thomps: he extended the PATRIOT act, pushed for the renewal of FISA, has been an active proponent of extrajudicial assassinations. sorry if i don't notice the things that are "subtle to the casual observer" but do see the things that are publicly denounced by his own base.

I will gladly admit President Obama has not perfect on the issue. But if you recall, your original claim was that he hasn't done anything to roll back the Bush era power grab, when in fact he has done quite a bit.


fair. i'll be sure to be more nuanced in the future.
 
2012-11-14 11:45:52 PM  
They're just trying to save us from this.

www.fohguild.org
 
2012-11-14 11:51:38 PM  

red230: They're just trying to save us from this.

[www.fohguild.org image 419x342]


So Rudy Giuliani, the darling of the right, was a fascist then?

"Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."
 
2012-11-14 11:51:58 PM  

The Mavrick: relcec: obama has kept gtmo. he could put the 70 guys on a ship and send them to the navy brig in virginia. but he doesn;t want to.

Citation Needed.


what citation? he started a war all by himself. he ignores the consitution any time it is politically expedient. why can't he take 50 dudes, put them on a supply ship headed for a virginia brig 400 miles away. it would take 24 hours. there is no law saying the president has to keep them there. and even if the consitution said he had to he would be willing to violate the consitution if it meant the hispanic blcok would vote for him, he showed that.
 
2012-11-14 11:55:54 PM  

ImpendingCynic: red230: They're just trying to save us from this.

[www.fohguild.org image 419x342]

So Rudy Giuliani, the darling of the right, was a fascist then?

"Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."


The communist fascist that America elected needs to have his powers certailed in order to perserve our union the way that the founding fathers invisioned when they created the constitution.
 
2012-11-14 11:58:34 PM  

red230: They're just trying to save us from this.


your image gave me a chrome malware alert

and herpes
 
2012-11-14 11:59:48 PM  

Ed Finnerty: serial_crusher: I thought the rulewas that presidents I agree with have unlimited power, but presidents I disagree with are traitors trampling on the constitution.

It is. SWITCH PLACES!1!!1!!1

[southdakotapolitics.blogs.com image 720x576]


*Shakes my fist*

That's my line!
 
2012-11-15 12:00:00 AM  

Ed Finnerty: Okay everyone, stand back. I've got this.

*ahem*

"Everything changed after 9/11."

*bows*


EPIC WIN!
 
2012-11-15 12:01:15 AM  

thomps: he extended the PATRIOT act, pushed for the renewal of FISA, has been an active proponent of extrajudicial assassinations. sorry if i don't notice the things that are "subtle to the casual observer" but do see the things that are publicly denounced by his own base.


Don't worry, none of those things are subtle to any observer except perhaps the blind and the very young.
 
2012-11-15 12:01:52 AM  

red230: They're just trying to save us from this.


Yeah, Marx and Lenin were utter fascists, weren't they?

/oh, wait...

relcec: The Mavrick: relcec: obama has kept gtmo. he could put the 70 guys on a ship and send them to the navy brig in virginia. but he doesn;t want to.

Citation Needed.

what citation? he started a war all by himself. he ignores the consitution any time it is politically expedient. why can't he take 50 dudes, put them on a supply ship headed for a virginia brig 400 miles away. it would take 24 hours. there is no law saying the president has to keep them there. and even if the consitution said he had to he would be willing to violate the consitution if it meant the hispanic blcok would vote for him, he showed that.


You seem to forget all the people whining that if we brought imprisoned terrorists onto shore it would somehow cause acts of terror to be committed, even if they're in supermax detention.
 
2012-11-15 12:12:11 AM  

Tarl3k: thomps: Lionel Mandrake: After FDR's 12-year reign...

I have a hard time taking someone seriously when they use the term "reign" to describe a President's term.

no kidding, "reign" implies legitimacy, which this usurper most certainly does not have.

I had done a search on your name to see if anybody had responded to you and gave you the education that you are obviously lacking in regards to what has actually happened...then I read this post, and had a moment of clarity. You are just a ****ing idiot who is trying to troll people by being stupid

I have nothing but pity for you, and hope that you find a better purpose for your life. Going to internet discussion forums like we have here are Fark.com and trolling by being stupid is just pathetic. If you really don't have anything better to do with your life, I suggest you go out, get an education, maybe actually find a purpose for your life. What you are doing now is simply just pathetic and sad. I would say you should live up to your potential, but I am scared to death that this IS the peak of your potential, which just makes me feel bad for humanity...


***clicks profile***

{The ability to let that which does not matter, truly slide. - Tyler }

LQL
 
2012-11-15 12:17:53 AM  
I thought the democrats won 5 of the last 6 electons (remember Florida 2000)? Oh wait, Bush won that by what 2000 votes or something like that?

I keep forgetiing.
 
2012-11-15 12:21:09 AM  

Sid_6.7: what citation? he started a war all by himself. he ignores the consitution any time it is politically expedient. why can't he take 50 dudes, put them on a supply ship headed for a virginia brig 400 miles away. it would take 24 hours. there is no law saying the president has to keep them there. and even if the consitution said he had to he would be willing to violate the consitution if it meant the hispanic blcok would vote for him, he showed that.

You seem to forget all the people whining that if we brought imprisoned terrorists onto shore it would somehow cause acts of terror to be committed, even if they're in supermax detention.




exactly, obama is a guilty as bush ever was of gtmo's existence. the only constraint keeping him from closing has ever been popularity, which is the only thing that guides his compass in any event. speaking of which it shouldn't really matter at all now since he can't run again.

but the vast majority of democrats don't really give a shiat about gitmo and never did. they ignore it. it's no longer politically useful to bring up.
the ones who at least have a tiny bit of principle and have a little cognitive dissonance from supporting a guy who maintains what they say they used to hate therefore create these lies for their own personal consumptin that somehow congress is making him keep it open.
see the idiot I responded to originally. at least you can admit the truth.
the only thing that guides his compass is political expediency.

see gay marriage: first he thought was good when his district liked the idea, then he said it was evil when he was running for president, then he magically thought it was good again when the nation finally flipped to not giving a shiat about it. but still not that good apparently because he thinks it is a states rights and doesn;t want to actually get involved but wants democrats to know he is now personally for it!

he's unbound by morality, legality, or even common f*cking sense. the perfect political animal. the perfect asshole for you feckless power worshipers.
 
2012-11-15 12:24:08 AM  
This crap is like clockwork.

www.sourcewatch.org
 
2012-11-15 12:27:03 AM  
Wow, I can hardly wait until the Rightwingnuts start on the old rumor that Obama loves power so much that in 2016 he is going to declare martial law and claim President for Life. I mean, he such a marxist commie anyway. It will be good times.
 
2012-11-15 12:27:55 AM  

Fista-Phobia: This crap is like clockwork.

[www.sourcewatch.org image 482x360]


for context, obama has used signing statements about 20 times in his first 4 years, so about double clinton's pace, but well behind bush.
 
2012-11-15 12:32:14 AM  
i1199.photobucket.com

Really?
 
2012-11-15 12:39:50 AM  

Fista-Phobia: [i1199.photobucket.com image 454x372]

Really?


I'm glad that I'm not the only one to notice that
 
2012-11-15 12:40:32 AM  

relcec: exactly, obama is a guilty as bush ever was of gtmo's existence. the only constraint keeping him from closing has ever been popularity, which is the only thing that guides his compass in any event. speaking of which it shouldn't really matter at all now since he can't run again.


lolpie.com
 
2012-11-15 12:41:21 AM  
No, I do not recall any such theory.
 
2012-11-15 12:43:19 AM  
Is anyone else getting a warning in Google Chrome on the second page regarding MalWare from some place called FohGuild?
 
2012-11-15 12:48:26 AM  

Professor Doctor Doctor Professor: Is anyone else getting a warning in Google Chrome on the second page regarding MalWare from some place called FohGuild?


Yes, I did. Though I have my comments set up to view all of them on one page.
 
2012-11-15 12:48:40 AM  
o5iiawah (farkied: Right-wing wharrgarbler with a wharrgarbl name): The dream ACT is a bill and not law. the president has no authority to execute a bill which has not come to his desk.

So write to your congressman and your senators.

Tell them you want them to fund ICE so they can round up all the Greasy Spics.

Tell them you want them to fund ICE so they can swarm this land with goonsagents to flag down anyone who looks a little darkish, ask them Sus papeles, por favor and beat the mierda out of them when they answer in English.

Tell them you want them to build the Great Wall of Texas.

And then STFU about the taxes needed to pay for it all.

i187.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-15 12:50:04 AM  

Fista-Phobia: [i1199.photobucket.com image 454x372]

Really?


Yes really, that's why I called him a communist fascist. Study it out.
 
2012-11-15 12:59:50 AM  

red230: They're just trying to save us from this.

[www.fohguild.org image 419x342]


i115.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-15 12:59:55 AM  

Professor Doctor Doctor Professor: Is anyone else getting a warning in Google Chrome on the second page regarding MalWare from some place called FohGuild?


I got that too, whats that all about?
 
2012-11-15 01:18:53 AM  

relcec: The Mavrick: relcec: obama has kept gtmo. he could put the 70 guys on a ship and send them to the navy brig in virginia. but he doesn;t want to.

Citation Needed.

what citation? he started a war all by himself. he ignores the consitution any time it is politically expedient. why can't he take 50 dudes, put them on a supply ship headed for a virginia brig 400 miles away. it would take 24 hours. there is no law saying the president has to keep them there. and even if the consitution said he had to he would be willing to violate the consitution if it meant the hispanic blcok would vote for him, he showed that.


So in order to prove your assertion that the President could just move people out of Gitmo whenever he wanted and so he obviously wants them there, you're going to . . . tell the same two lies as before?

Like I said, you hate Obama and, to you, it doesn't matter why. You've already reached your conclusion, and if the facts don't fit, then they get discarded. I guess I just don't get the appeal of believing something that can't stand on facts.
 
2012-11-15 01:46:37 AM  

relcec: Sid_6.7: what citation? he started a war all by himself. he ignores the consitution any time it is politically expedient. why can't he take 50 dudes, put them on a supply ship headed for a virginia brig 400 miles away. it would take 24 hours. there is no law saying the president has to keep them there. and even if the consitution said he had to he would be willing to violate the consitution if it meant the hispanic blcok would vote for him, he showed that.

You seem to forget all the people whining that if we brought imprisoned terrorists onto shore it would somehow cause acts of terror to be committed, even if they're in supermax detention.



exactly, obama is a guilty as bush ever was of gtmo's existence. the only constraint keeping him from closing has ever been popularity, which is the only thing that guides his compass in any event. speaking of which it shouldn't really matter at all now since he can't run again.

but the vast majority of democrats don't really give a shiat about gitmo and never did. they ignore it. it's no longer politically useful to bring up.
the ones who at least have a tiny bit of principle and have a little cognitive dissonance from supporting a guy who maintains what they say they used to hate therefore create these lies for their own personal consumptin that somehow congress is making him keep it open.
see the idiot I responded to originally. at least you can admit the truth.
the only thing that guides his compass is political expediency.

see gay marriage: first he thought was good when his district liked the idea, then he said it was evil when he was running for president, then he magically thought it was good again when the nation finally flipped to not giving a shiat about it. but still not that good apparently because he thinks it is a states rights and doesn;t want to actually get involved but wants democrats to know he is now personally for it!

he's unbound by morality, legality, or even common f*cking sense. the perfect polit ...


That.....doesn't even make any sense. Not even gramatically.
 
2012-11-15 01:53:01 AM  

Magorn: thomps: i don't give a sh*t when or how they got this epiphany, rolling back the bush-era power grab was a 2008 obama campaign promise and it's high time he made good on it.

If you actually have paid attention he HAS in some massive ways, reforming FISA, disclaiming the infamous WH memos about "enemy combatants" and massively reforming FOIA. It's subtle to the casual observer but seismic if you know this area of law


NDAA ... ya, that's rolling back in massive ways.
 
2012-11-15 02:29:16 AM  
John Yoo testified before Congress as a Bush lawyer that when we are at war (since 2001 with no letup in sight) that the President has the authority to have a young boy's testicles crushed in front of his parents to extract information from them (it is on YouTube if you care to look it up). Odd that the statement didn't make headlines with reporters having to scrape their jaws off the ground.

Obama tried to extend our stay in Iraq but Iraq wouldn't extend the immunity of our soldiers. Guantanamo is still open. I just don't see that much difference between Obama and W on the war issue other than Obama doubled down with the surge and using drones to kill US citizens.
 
2012-11-15 03:22:03 AM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Tell them you want them to fund ICE so they can swarm this land with goonsagents to flag down anyone who looks a little darkish,


You havent read SB1070 and you dont know the Constitution so this conversation is pointless.
 
2012-11-15 05:28:49 AM  
This was all predicted back when the Bush administration made their power grab. Sooner or later a Democrat would take office and utilize those same powers. The people that were at the time defending Bush would suddenly find reasons to dislike the abuses, while many of the ones critical of Bush would get partisan blinders for a lot of it. It's home-team politics, where people are drawn to defend "their guy" no matter what simply because it comes off as weakness or an admission of wrongdoing to recognize that there might be serious problems, regardless of who is in office or what he's doing to your tax rate. Conservatives who chided Bush for all of this were derided as RINOs or worse. Liberals who speak out against Obama on these same matters are brushed off either as trolls or wide-eyed idealist wackos.
 
2012-11-15 06:56:00 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: No, subby, when did the right say the President's powers are nearly unlimited?

citation?


look up The legal Memos from John Yoo, David Addington, and Jay Bybee. They say almost exactly that verbatim, and advance the "Unitary executive" Theory That, for example the DOJ can't prosecute anyone in the WH because both are part of the executive branch and the executive can't prosecute itself because it is a unitary entity

eg:
Cassel: If the President deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?
Yoo: No treaty.
Cassel: Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo.
Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.

Yoo argues presidential powers on Constitutional grounds, but where in the Constitution does it say the President can order the torture of children ? As David Cole puts it, "Yoo reasoned that because the Constitution makes the President the 'Commander-in-Chief,' no law can restrict the actions he may take in pursuit of war. On this reasoning, the President would be entitled by the Constitution to resort to genocide if he wished."
 
2012-11-15 07:29:04 AM  

o5iiawah: Lee Jackson Beauregard: Tell them you want them to fund ICE so they can swarm this land with goonsagents to flag down anyone who looks a little darkish,

You havent read SB1070 and you dont know the Constitution so this conversation is pointless.


It's doubly pointless, because it doesn't matter what he, you, or I think about SB1070. What the soon-to-be Hispanic majorityy in Arizona thinks about it - that matters. The smart money says Arizona goes Blue in the next two or three cycles.
 
2012-11-15 07:53:12 AM  

Dr.Zom: Mentat: Man, it's too bad no one warned them that a Democrat would eventually win the Presidency.

How could they with a permanent Republican majority?

/permanent Republican majority


What used to concern me, a lot, was: why would Darth Cheney give his chimp such powers if he ever thought The Enemy would be in power? Darth, the man who had a plan to invade Iraq before 9/11, who insisted on evidence tying Saddam to 9/11, who was torture's greatest fan, who frequently talked about White House Über Alles. The implications were scary.

Turns out Darth was really not much brighter than the chimp, as his post-office whining has shown. He had the same dimwitted faith that they would just hang onto power because derp.
 
2012-11-15 06:37:46 PM  
The right-wing didn't argue the president had unlimited power. They argued that the president had set powers under the Constitution and Congress couldn't usurp them. As to limits, the congress already can impeach him for anything they want. That's a pretty nebulous limit that can be pulled at any time.
 
Displayed 119 of 119 comments

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