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.

(CNN)   Rand Paul lays down the line on Obama's imperial ambitions: "I'm against having a king...I think having a monarch is what we fought the American Revolution over"   (politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com) divider line 628
    More: Hero, obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Christian Broadcasting Network, White House Press Secretary, Rand Paul, assault weapons, NRA  
•       •       •

12832 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Jan 2013 at 10:17 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-16 08:29:32 AM
Then he's an idiot. That's NOT why we fought the American Revolution. Like, at all.

We didn't fight because we had a monarch. We fought because we didn't have representation in Parliament.
 
2013-01-16 08:30:18 AM
We get it. If you can't win on real issues, just start making shiat up
 
2013-01-16 08:36:52 AM

DamnYankees: Then he's an idiot. That's NOT why we fought the American Revolution. Like, at all.

We didn't fight because we had a monarch. We fought because we didn't have representation in Parliament.


I think we all know Republican's understanding of history, indeed or reality, is limited to how it may be twisted to serve their purpose.
 
2013-01-16 08:37:04 AM
Is everything going green this morning?  Hero tag?  Really?
 
2013-01-16 08:39:37 AM

DamnYankees: Then he's an idiot. That's NOT why we fought the American Revolution. Like, at all.

We didn't fight because we had a monarch. We fought because we didn't have representation in Parliament.


Technically it was because we were having taxes imposed while not having representation in parliament.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-16 09:05:40 AM

SurfaceTension: DamnYankees: Then he's an idiot. That's NOT why we fought the American Revolution. Like, at all.

We didn't fight because we had a monarch. We fought because we didn't have representation in Parliament.

Technically it was because we were having taxes imposed while not having representation in parliament.


That was the basis for demanding representation.  Most of the founding fathers didn't want independence at first, they just wanted the colonies to have MPs.

If we had gotten our own MPs there wouldn't have been a revolutionary war.
 
2013-01-16 09:09:30 AM

SurfaceTension: Technically it was because we were having taxes imposed while not having representation in parliament.


Not to go all Howard Zinn (I just assume he's written something that bears a resemblance to the following), but technically that's a very simplistic analysis. Very few people could even vote at the time, even for local colonial offices that were independent of the crown; if you weren't a white, male landowner over 21 years of age, even the local authority would not enfranchise you. Those at the head of the revolutionary movement, including John Adams, fervently opposed widening the right to vote. "Taxation without representation" was a convenient slogan, but it couldn't mean much to the "middle" and lower classes that didn't meet the parameters necessary to have the vote. And it certainly wasn't a policy that the colonies bothered to remedy after winning their independence from the crown.

Remember that people and politicians aren't really any different now from how they were 350 years ago. Sloganeering and the political spectacle are as old as time. The people at the front of an ideological movement will find ways to convince people who stand to gain very little if anything from that movement that they need to join in. Look at today's Tea Party and other fringe groups.
 
2013-01-16 09:21:27 AM
It's good to see that Rand Paul is continuing the family tradition of not letting pesky things like facts or historical accuracy hinder his political ambition.
 
2013-01-16 09:29:42 AM

Ennuipoet: DamnYankees: Then he's an idiot. That's NOT why we fought the American Revolution. Like, at all.

We didn't fight because we had a monarch. We fought because we didn't have representation in Parliament.

I think we all know Republican's understanding of history, indeed or reality, is limited to how it may be twisted to serve their purpose.


Bullshiat. Don't you remember Paul Revere ringing his bells of freedom?
 
2013-01-16 09:31:06 AM

kronicfeld: SurfaceTension: Technically it was because we were having taxes imposed while not having representation in parliament.

Not to go all Howard Zinn (I just assume he's written something that bears a resemblance to the following), but technically that's a very simplistic analysis. Very few people could even vote at the time, even for local colonial offices that were independent of the crown; if you weren't a white, male landowner over 21 years of age, even the local authority would not enfranchise you. Those at the head of the revolutionary movement, including John Adams, fervently opposed widening the right to vote. "Taxation without representation" was a convenient slogan, but it couldn't mean much to the "middle" and lower classes that didn't meet the parameters necessary to have the vote. And it certainly wasn't a policy that the colonies bothered to remedy after winning their independence from the crown.

Remember that people and politicians aren't really any different now from how they were 350 years ago. Sloganeering and the political spectacle are as old as time. The people at the front of an ideological movement will find ways to convince people who stand to gain very little if anything from that movement that they need to join in. Look at today's Tea Party and other fringe groups.


After reading A People's History, I got the impression that it was just a bunch of rich people over here who didn't like other rich people across the ocean telling them what to do and preventing them from getting even richer.
 
2013-01-16 09:31:11 AM
I think people need to start making up weirdly extrapolated claims for Republicans in a similar manner. Fight the crazy with more crazy.
 
2013-01-16 09:33:59 AM
In 1776, Paul Revere rode through Boston ringing a bell and shooting fireworks and shouting, "Monarch beware! You'll pry our muskets from our cold, dead fingers!"
 
2013-01-16 09:37:10 AM
TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!

But ok, thanks for playing Rand Paul.
 
2013-01-16 09:45:29 AM

Cythraul: After reading A People's History, I got the impression that it was just a bunch of rich people over here who didn't like other rich people across the ocean telling them what to do and preventing them from getting even richer.


That's basically right. It's what makes our revolution much less interesting and dramatic than the French Revolution.
 
2013-01-16 09:47:19 AM

Cythraul: After reading A People's History, I got the impression that it was just a bunch of rich people over here who didn't like other rich people across the ocean telling them what to do and preventing them from getting even richer.


I only read bits and pieces of A People's History over a decade ago, so I really don't know if I'm echoing Zinn or not. Maybe I'm just a cynic, but I don't think it's all that hard to look behind the simplistic veneer that we were taught in grade school. People seem to think that historical politicians were somehow radically different from the politicians of today, to the point that they were paladins of virtue and altruism, and that's just silly.
 
2013-01-16 09:47:31 AM

jylcat: TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!

But ok, thanks for playing Rand Paul.



daviding.com


We've come a long way, baby.
 
2013-01-16 09:53:47 AM

kronicfeld: Cythraul: After reading A People's History, I got the impression that it was just a bunch of rich people over here who didn't like other rich people across the ocean telling them what to do and preventing them from getting even richer.

I only read bits and pieces of A People's History over a decade ago, so I really don't know if I'm echoing Zinn or not. Maybe I'm just a cynic, but I don't think it's all that hard to look behind the simplistic veneer that we were taught in grade school. People seem to think that historical politicians were somehow radically different from the politicians of today, to the point that they were paladins of virtue and altruism, and that's just silly.


From what I remember of A People's History, what you said was very close to what Zinn wrote.
 
2013-01-16 09:53:47 AM
"I'm against having a king. "

That makes him a Democrat, not a Republican.
 
2013-01-16 09:54:34 AM

Nofun: Is everything going green this morning?  Hero tag?  Really?


troll headline is for trolls
 
2013-01-16 09:57:19 AM

DamnYankees: We didn't fight because we had a monarch. We fought because we didn't have representation in Parliament.


Wrong.  It was because White Jesus told us dem feriners were bad.
 
2013-01-16 10:03:33 AM
If you don't like what Obama is doing, take control and get some bills passed that actually solve the problems. You have the power, but you are going to have to *gasp* consider everyone and not be retarded to get your bills passed; just like it's always been. Otherwise shut up while Obama solves your problems for you since you can't do it.
 
2013-01-16 10:14:26 AM

Amos Quito: jylcat: TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!

But ok, thanks for playing Rand Paul.


[daviding.com image 475x281]


We've come a long way, baby.


And Rand Paul would like to end that taxation for DC -- and the rest of us as well, so he can end representation.
 
2013-01-16 10:18:35 AM
"I'm against having a king," he said Tuesday in an interview in Jerusalem with the Christian Broadcasting Network.

Uhm...
 
2013-01-16 10:19:28 AM
Yes, Obama is violating the constitution and imposing himself as a Monarch. He just ignores the laws set by your found father.
 
2013-01-16 10:19:50 AM
Loonie.
Wonder what color the sky is in his world.
In other news, Rand Paul should NOT own a firearm.
 
2013-01-16 10:20:25 AM
So, you guys are ok with Obama skipping around Congress on the second-most inflammatory issue (second to abortion) in politics by issuing an executive order?
 
2013-01-16 10:21:13 AM

SurfaceTension: DamnYankees: Then he's an idiot. That's NOT why we fought the American Revolution. Like, at all.

We didn't fight because we had a monarch. We fought because we didn't have representation in Parliament.

Technically it was because we were having taxes imposed while not having representation in parliament.


If you want to go even further back it's because we had a tax imposed on us to pay for the French and Indian War after Parliament rejected the colonists' proposal to organize their own militias to defend themselves.
 
2013-01-16 10:21:59 AM

DamnYankees: Then he's an idiot. That's NOT why we fought the American Revolution. Like, at all.

We didn't fight because we had a monarch. We fought because we didn't have representation in Parliament.


You have to earn your independence. Behave and you end up like NZ! Get rowdy and you end up like india or the usa :/
 
2013-01-16 10:23:10 AM

Timmy the Tumor: So, you guys are ok with Obama skipping around Congress on the second-most inflammatory issue (second to abortion) in politics by issuing an executive order?


This is Fark, they are okay with Obama ____________________.
 
2013-01-16 10:23:19 AM
soooo, he was being interviewed by a network that promotes the King of Kings?
 
2013-01-16 10:24:15 AM

Timmy the Tumor: So, you guys are ok with Obama skipping around Congress on the second-most inflammatory issue (second to abortion) in politics by issuing an executive order?


Were you OK with Reagan and GW Bush skipping around Congress on the most imflammatory issue (abortion) by issuing the Global Gag Rule?
 
2013-01-16 10:24:18 AM
Ever notice that taxation WITH representation isn't all it's cracked up to be either?
 
2013-01-16 10:24:46 AM

kronicfeld: SurfaceTension: Technically it was because we were having taxes imposed while not having representation in parliament.

Not to go all Howard Zinn (I just assume he's written something that bears a resemblance to the following), but technically that's a very simplistic analysis. Very few people could even vote at the time, even for local colonial offices that were independent of the crown; if you weren't a white, male landowner over 21 years of age, even the local authority would not enfranchise you. Those at the head of the revolutionary movement, including John Adams, fervently opposed widening the right to vote. "Taxation without representation" was a convenient slogan, but it couldn't mean much to the "middle" and lower classes that didn't meet the parameters necessary to have the vote. And it certainly wasn't a policy that the colonies bothered to remedy after winning their independence from the crown.

Remember that people and politicians aren't really any different now from how they were 350 4,000 years ago. Sloganeering and the political spectacle are as old as time. The people at the front of an ideological movement will find ways to convince people who stand to gain very little if anything from that movement that they need to join in. Look at today's Tea Party and other fringe groups.



FTFY
 
2013-01-16 10:24:59 AM
Barack Obama is not a king - he's just a run of the mill fascist. Just look at the reports of him using some kind of mythical 'executive powers' to strip our gun rights and bypass congress and any type of vote. He fears a vote, he fears democracy. Typical scumbag fascist.
 
2013-01-16 10:25:26 AM
lazytraders.com
 
2013-01-16 10:25:57 AM
The hero tag is a joke, right?
 
2013-01-16 10:26:20 AM
DamnYankees [TotalFark]

Then he's an idiot. That's NOT why we fought the American Revolution. Like, at all.

We didn't fight because we had a monarch. We fought because we didn't have representation in Parliament.


No, stupid, we fought it over slavery
 
2013-01-16 10:26:28 AM

SurfaceTension: DamnYankees: Then he's an idiot. That's NOT why we fought the American Revolution. Like, at all.

We didn't fight because we had a monarch. We fought because we didn't have representation in Parliament.

Technically it was because we were having taxes imposed while not having representation in parliament.


On a side note, it's rather tragic that we then treat the citizens of DC in the exact same manner.
 
2013-01-16 10:27:39 AM
Okay, this is as nutty as the people in 2004 and 2008 claiming Bush would declare martial law and rule for life.  Go pretend that 9/11 was an inside job.  That New Town was an Obama conspiracy.  That Obama is Kenyan...well, that one might be true.
 
2013-01-16 10:27:55 AM
Wow, I should have guessed this thread would attract a few crazies.
 
2013-01-16 10:28:11 AM

Nofun: Hero tag? Really?


The Hero tag is applied to every story about a brave Conservative Christian Republican who heroically Sticks It To The Libs, for indeed that is what America is all about.
 
2013-01-16 10:28:55 AM
He was raised by RON PAUL.

RON PAUL, how did you get your kid THIS STUPID?
 
2013-01-16 10:29:05 AM

doubled99: DamnYankees [TotalFark]

Then he's an idiot. That's NOT why we fought the American Revolution. Like, at all.

We didn't fight because we had a monarch. We fought because we didn't have representation in Parliament.

No, stupid, we fought it over slavery


Um, I'm pretty sure it was fought for Jesus.
 
2013-01-16 10:29:11 AM
Can't believe a guy that dumb about the real world made it through med school.
 
2013-01-16 10:29:49 AM
As others have said, republicans grasp of history is pretty flimsy at best. Plus, anything Rand Paul says is almost definately going to be pure stupid.
 
2013-01-16 10:29:50 AM

TheOther: He was raised by RON PAUL.

RON PAUL, how did you get your kid THIS STUPID?


He named his kid after Ayn Rand ... obvious retard is obvious.
 
JFC
2013-01-16 10:30:02 AM
Also that black summovabiatch is like Hitler and Mussolini and Pol Pot and Ayatollah Khamenei and Saddam Hussein and Maummar Gaddafi and Osama Bin Ladin and Kim Jong-Il and Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo and Hosni Mubarak and Joseph Stalin and Robert Mugabe and Mao Zedong and Augusto Pinochet and Francisco Franco and Fidel Castro and Omar Bongo and Nursultan Nazarbayev and Vidkun Quisling and Idi Amin all rolled into one person who thinks he's Julius Caesar or some shiat.

Finally we gots truth speaking to power, internet style. You done us good, RP2.
 
2013-01-16 10:30:07 AM
Ahh republicans, leading the world in bold stances against issues that don't exist and no one is endorsing.
 
2013-01-16 10:30:35 AM

SurfaceTension: DamnYankees: Then he's an idiot. That's NOT why we fought the American Revolution. Like, at all.

We didn't fight because we had a monarch. We fought because we didn't have representation in Parliament.

Technically it was because we were having taxes imposed while not having representation in parliament.


Technically it was because the rich were tired of not having a government under their control.
 
2013-01-16 10:30:36 AM
so ... what did he think about bush, i wonder.
 
Displayed 50 of 628 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report