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.

(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
    More: Hero, obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Christian Broadcasting Network, White House Press Secretary, Rand Paul, assault weapons, NRA  
•       •       •

12839 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Jan 2013 at 10:17 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



628 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
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.
 
2013-01-16 10:31:22 AM  
People fought the Revolutionary War for many reasons. Some of them were indeed not too keen on having a king. There was even a proposal floated during the drafting of the Constitution to have three co-equal Presidents, precisely because having one seemed too monarchical. On the other hand, there were other early proposals that actually had a king, though in an elected and limited office much like what we now call the President.
 
2013-01-16 10:31:43 AM  

I Am The Bishop Of East Anglia: Can't believe a guy that dumb about the real world made it through med school.


You'd be surprised how airheaded med school students can be. It's pretty terrifying.
 
2013-01-16 10:31:55 AM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: 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.


Well, to be fair, they are mostly black. and thus are probably leeches. AND DUMOCRATZS! can't give them any voting power in congress. Same with peurto rico, cept they are messican.
 
2013-01-16 10:32:31 AM  
We fought the Revolution to win the mineral rights in America from the Hessians, right?
 
2013-01-16 10:33:17 AM  
"(CNN) - Saying President Barack Obama is acting like a "king" by threatening to take executive action on gun laws, Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand...."

And I stopped reading right there.
 
2013-01-16 10:33:17 AM  
So, you folks would be A-OK with GWB using executive orders to circumvent the Constitution?

What am I saying? Of course you would! Because you're not a bunch of hypocrites.
 
2013-01-16 10:33:29 AM  
 
2013-01-16 10:33:31 AM  
Its pretty obvious why people like Glenn Beck have a good business model in stirring up the populace with fake threats. They have willing sheeple who will buy into it. Didn't realize any of them commented at Fark, though I'll have to ask Imam Barack tonight about repealing the 1st amendment by executive order to stop that shiat.
 
2013-01-16 10:33:46 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?


Has he actually done this yet?
 
2013-01-16 10:34:50 AM  
OK, so I'll admit, I slept through my government class.

When an executive order is executed, what happens next? Say he tried to remove free speech from our country which would clearly violate the constitution. What checks and balances are there for this? Can it be reversed by congress? Does it go to a supreme court?

Or does it just become law and there is nothing that can be done about it? [I'm assuming the next president could remove it?]
 
2013-01-16 10:34:52 AM  

TheOther: He was raised by RON PAUL.

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


You answered your own question.
 
2013-01-16 10:35:07 AM  

there4igraham: 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.



I thought it all started over that deaf & blind girl that hid in an attic from Paul Revere
 
2013-01-16 10:35:27 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.


Word:
cps-static.rovicorp.com
 
2013-01-16 10:36:02 AM  
Hey,

Quick question to sate my ignorance.

The linked article mentions the assault weapons ban which expired in 2004. Were the weapons used in the Aurora and Sandy Hook shootings covered by that ban?
 
2013-01-16 10:36:05 AM  
Obama's a king now? So I gather he recently abolished term limits and appointed an heir to the throne?
 
2013-01-16 10:36:11 AM  
usurping

DRINK!
 
2013-01-16 10:36:39 AM  
"multiple stakeholders in the gun control debate"

I'm pretty sure I wasn't there
 
2013-01-16 10:37:00 AM  
You gitty Liberals should head warning that your Obama is setting a precedent for future presidents. How are you going to like it when a president you don't agree with starts using their powers in the same dictating style. It will happen.
 
2013-01-16 10:37:00 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.


That is a perspective I've never considered in quite that way. This is one reason I love Fark. Thanks.
 
2013-01-16 10:37:30 AM  

DamnYankees: 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.


i don't think we ever had a revolution. we made no serious changes in Great Britain. we had a cessation. The French, now that was a revolution. oh yeah, and it all started because bread prices were too high in urban areas and the king decided to let the market solve the problem. that, and the fact poor people paid 70% of their income in taxes while the church and aristocracy paid nothing.
 
2013-01-16 10:38:28 AM  
DNRTFA But is this about him gettin all paranoid about Obama staying in office after his term is up? Jeezle I remember about 5 years ago some fringe lefties were wetting themselves over Bush seizing power and staying in office. I was at Barnes & Noble and saw a book in fiction about it. I just shook my head then too. If any president did stay in offcie past his term I would say it would have to be some damn national emergency for him to do it, like end of the world stuff. If not there would probably be a big mess from the House & Senate to the DoD to the public at large and I hope they would hang that person for doing it.
 
2013-01-16 10:38:35 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?


It is the will of the people media that something be done interesting.
 
2013-01-16 10:39:16 AM  

KarmicDisaster: 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.


I think that's the problem. Maybe we need more time to solve them, or can't come to an agreement. Either way, it's not for Obama to just decide things are going to be this way and implement parts of the law via EO.
 
2013-01-16 10:39:19 AM  
What other magical things that will never happen are you against, Rand? Are you against Obama ripping the head off a lamb and feasting on it's still-warm blood during the inauguration? Are you against Obama revealing himself as the alien leader of the Rigilian Federation, and ordering his gunships to begin rounding up slaves for use in Vespene Gas factories?
 
2013-01-16 10:40:07 AM  

ImpendingCynic: 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?


I was 11 years old, was more concerned with watching cartoons than whatever the global gag rule is.


DO keep in mind that saying "well, because someone did ________ 30 years ago, it's ok for this guy to do something similar now" is a pretty weak stance
 
2013-01-16 10:40:08 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.


What's that called when we don't have any effective representation in our government and the leader makes the decisions? Oh right, dictatorship (monarch if they consider themselves regal).
I hate siding with the fundies, but this one they are right about.
 
2013-01-16 10:40:09 AM  
IMO Obama is a fairly weak president relative to recent history in terms of how much influence he actually has.
 
2013-01-16 10:40:42 AM  

clane: You gitty Liberals should head warning that your Obama is setting a precedent for future presidents. How are you going to like it when a president you don't agree with starts using their powers in the same dictating style. It will happen.


What new precedent is he setting? He's FOLLOWING precedent.
 
2013-01-16 10:40:54 AM  

moothemagiccow: 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.


They fixed that, didn't they?
 
2013-01-16 10:41:28 AM  
So everyone remembers that the founding fathers wanted to make George Washington the American king, but he refused, right?
 
2013-01-16 10:41:31 AM  

Kiwimann: Hey,

Quick question to sate my ignorance.

The linked article mentions the assault weapons ban which expired in 2004. Were the weapons used in the Aurora and Sandy Hook shootings covered by that ban?


Aurora maybe, CT no. CT enacted a ban in 1993 that didn't expire and the rifle used was in compliance with that ban.
 
2013-01-16 10:41:38 AM  

clane: You gitty Liberals should head warning


I can't parse that.
 
2013-01-16 10:41:58 AM  
Trolling is a pretty disrespectful use of the Hero tag. I'm not impressed with Subby or the Mod who approved it.
 
2013-01-16 10:42:03 AM  
"Republicans are idiots" becomes less and less of a broad brush stereotype every day.
 
2013-01-16 10:42:07 AM  

Kiwimann: Hey,

Quick question to sate my ignorance.

The linked article mentions the assault weapons ban which expired in 2004. Were the weapons used in the Aurora and Sandy Hook shootings covered by that ban?


Maybe? Here's the thing about the old AWB. It prohibited the sale of new assault weapons and magazines but grandfathered in ones that had already been made. So the high capacity magazines, and possibly the rifles used in Aurora and Sandy Hook may have been illegal. Assuming they weren't made before the ban went into effect. The shotgun and pistols those guys had would have been legal.
 
2013-01-16 10:42:37 AM  
Besides... as any idjit can tell you, we need machine guns to hunt squirrels and rabbits. Bigger game like deer, require RPGs.

24.media.tumblr.com

It's comin' right for us!
 
2013-01-16 10:42:40 AM  
Stupid, not hero.
Also, imperial ambitions, subtard? What country is he trying to take over?
 
2013-01-16 10:42:47 AM  

clane: You gitty Liberals should head warning that your Obama is setting a precedent for future presidents. How are you going to like it when a president you don't agree with starts using their powers in the same dictating style. It will happen.


The precedent was already set. Pretty sure Afghanistan, Iraq, NDAA, suspension of habeus corpus, and the numberous other things that happened from 2000-2008 were brilliant plans from one George Walker Bush.
 
2013-01-16 10:43:07 AM  
Were the gun nuts threatening revolution back in 1989? Somehow, I think not...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/12/range-executive-actions-po s sible-on-guns-some-more-controversial-than-others/

Issuing an executive order is not a new idea. It has been used many times before.

In 1989, then-President George H.W. Bush halted the importation of
some semi-automatic firearms that could be considered "assault weapons"
under existing legal authority provided by the 1968 Gun Control Act,
under the determination that they were not "particularly suitable for or
readily adapting to sporting purposes."

Bush used his executive powers after a career criminal killed five
kids and wounded 29 others with an AK-47 assault rifle on Jan. 27, 1989,
in California.
 
Bf+
2013-01-16 10:43:40 AM  
So...

According to Republicans, Obama is:
Socialist
Marxist
Arab
Fascist
Antichrist
Kenyan
Muslim
Blah
Usurper
Monarch

I left out Reptoid for now-- It's just a matter of time though.
Any others I missed?
 
2013-01-16 10:43:46 AM  

I_C_Weener: Okay, this is as nutty as the people in 2004 and 2008 2000 claiming Bush Clinton 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.

Fixed.
 
2013-01-16 10:43:51 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.


Actually the real start of the rebellion was when the Brits marched south to take away the munitions and arms stashes of the colonists, but the colonists had advance warning due to some dude named Paul Revere riding down shouting about the brittish coming.

But your revision of history is cool too, I like you all pretend that the colonist just sort of whined the brits into letting them have independence.
 
2013-01-16 10:44:31 AM  

clane: You gitty Liberals should head warning that your Obama is setting a precedent for future presidents. How are you going to like it when a president you don't agree with starts using their powers in the same dictating style. It will happen.


static.seton.co.uk

IT WILL HAPPEN PEOPLE!
 
2013-01-16 10:44:32 AM  
Not like Obama passed the ..."Patriot" Act
 
2013-01-16 10:44:35 AM  

clane: You gitty Liberals should head warning that your Obama is setting a precedent for future presidents. How are you going to like it when a president you don't agree with starts using their powers in the same dictating style. It will happen.


George W. Bush issued 161 signing statements affecting over 1,100 provisions of law in 160 Congressional enactments.
 
2013-01-16 10:45:37 AM  

kronicfeld: Look at today's Tea Party and other fringe groups.


The GOP is a fringe group?
 
2013-01-16 10:46:32 AM  

Krymson Tyde: 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?


More like washing the balls of freedom.

/not really
 
2013-01-16 10:46:50 AM  

TheOther: He was raised by RON PAUL.

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


Genetics.
 
2013-01-16 10:47:04 AM  

odinsposse: Kiwimann: Hey,

Quick question to sate my ignorance.

The linked article mentions the assault weapons ban which expired in 2004. Were the weapons used in the Aurora and Sandy Hook shootings covered by that ban?

Maybe? Here's the thing about the old AWB. It prohibited the sale of new assault weapons and magazines but grandfathered in ones that had already been made. So the high capacity magazines, and possibly the rifles used in Aurora and Sandy Hook may have been illegal. Assuming they weren't made before the ban went into effect. The shotgun and pistols those guys had would have been legal.


thinking about this, has anyone told these people that magazines are basically just metal boxes with a spring in them? or that there are already a gobillion "high capacity" versions of them in existence?
 
2013-01-16 10:47:06 AM  
I can't wait until this guy is president.
 
2013-01-16 10:47:14 AM  

Timmy the Tumor: ImpendingCynic: 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?

I was 11 years old, was more concerned with watching cartoons than whatever the global gag rule is.


DO keep in mind that saying "well, because someone did ________ 30 years ago, it's ok for this guy to do something similar now" is a pretty weak stance


Maybe, but compared to the soup sandwich of 'logic' put out by Rand Paul in TFA, it's farking genius.
 
2013-01-16 10:47:14 AM  
So Rand Paul believes that the President of the United States can't give a directive to organizations in the EXECUTIVE BRANCH. And supposedly this is the guy who knows the constitution?

HABAHAHA!
 
2013-01-16 10:47:45 AM  
I can't deal with this collection of stupid anymore.
 
2013-01-16 10:47:51 AM  

ImpendingCynic: 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?


Administration of George Bush (1989-1993)
166 Total Executive Orders Issued

Administration of Ronald Reagan (1981-1989)
381 Total Executive Orders Issued

Administration of George W. Bush (2001-2009)
291 Total Executive orders Issued

Administration of Barack Obama (2009-Present)
144 Total Executive orders Issued

Looks like Obama is about average for the number of executive orders issued. But he is blah, and it's about guns, so.......holy shiat. The race wars are really starting. gun nuts, start your engines. You're finally going to get to shoot someone.
 
2013-01-16 10:47:54 AM  
Clap, clap, clap.

Dumbass go home!
 
2013-01-16 10:48:02 AM  
Rand Paul's destiny is surely a reality show.

(Surely.)
 
2013-01-16 10:48:39 AM  
"We fought because we didn't have representation in Parliament !"

No....no not close.

The LAST thing the organizers of the American revolution wanted was representation in British Government. It would have served little purpose.

'Taxation without representation' was a neat little sound bite for Colonists. But those who planned and carried out the American Revolution NEVER intended to be under British Monarchy.

Rand Paul is right about that part.

/history
 
2013-01-16 10:48:49 AM  
Having taken precious time to read through that pile of crap, I've come to the following conclusions:

1) The President is going to act via Executive Order, which is fully within the scope and authority of his office.

2) The GOP doesn't like this.

3) The GOP is going to make up something to try and impeach the President.

Did I miss anything of relevance?
 
2013-01-16 10:48:57 AM  
I predict nothing will come of this. Gun nutters are going to do what they always do - talk big shiat, eat dinner at Denny's, have unsatisfying sex with their wife, fart, fall asleep, then do it all over again tomorrow.
 
2013-01-16 10:49:03 AM  

WhoopAssWayne: 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.


Quit phoning it in or hang it up.
 
2013-01-16 10:49:10 AM  

WhoopAssWayne: 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.


potatozone.com
 
2013-01-16 10:49:11 AM  

TheOther: He was raised by RON PAUL.

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


Practice.
 
2013-01-16 10:49:27 AM  
Other "kingly" actions that perhaps Rand needs to look into.

I for one am concerned about the decision to protect Striped Bass and Red Drum Fish populations without concerning himself with the rest of us! That wily tyrant!
 
2013-01-16 10:49:38 AM  

Infernalist: Having taken precious time to read through that pile of crap, I've come to the following conclusions:

1) The President is going to act via Executive Order, which is fully within the scope and authority of his office.

2) The GOP doesn't like this.

3) The GOP is going to make up something to try and impeach the President.

Did I miss anything of relevance?


.
You sound like a person not familiar with the laws of the US.
 
2013-01-16 10:49:48 AM  

clane: You gitty Liberals should head warning that your Obama is setting a precedent for future presidents. How are you going to like it when a president you don't agree with starts using their powers in the same dictating style. It will happen.


Your aware every presidents give orders to the organizations to the executive branch. It's actually the job of the president.


He doesn't only hire people.
 
2013-01-16 10:50:28 AM  

TheOther: He was raised by RON PAUL.

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


I believe your question contains your answer.
 
2013-01-16 10:50:29 AM  

david_gaithersburg: I can't wait until this guy is president.


I'll file that in the folder with all the other conservative predictions that never come true.
 
2013-01-16 10:51:36 AM  
There was a long list of reasons for the Revolutionary War. Does anybody even read the Declaration of Independence anymore?

btw, Rand Paul was opposed to Republican presidents bypassing Congress too.
 
2013-01-16 10:51:42 AM  

SuperT: thinking about this, has anyone told these people that magazines are basically just metal boxes with a spring in them? or that there are already a gobillion "high capacity" versions of them in existence?


I certainly hope not. Anti-gun advocates have mainly said they are against confiscation and that's really the only way to remove all of those magazines from the country.
 
2013-01-16 10:51:50 AM  

david_gaithersburg: Infernalist: Having taken precious time to read through that pile of crap, I've come to the following conclusions:

1) The President is going to act via Executive Order, which is fully within the scope and authority of his office.

2) The GOP doesn't like this.

3) The GOP is going to make up something to try and impeach the President.

Did I miss anything of relevance?

.
You sound like a person not familiar with the laws of the US.

Among the proposals are 19 executive actions that Obama could take without congressional approval, legislators briefed by Biden said Tuesday.

 
2013-01-16 10:51:56 AM  

belome: OK, so I'll admit, I slept through my government class.

When an executive order is executed, what happens next? Say he tried to remove free speech from our country which would clearly violate the constitution. What checks and balances are there for this? Can it be reversed by congress? Does it go to a supreme court?

Or does it just become law and there is nothing that can be done about it? [I'm assuming the next president could remove it?]


The Supreme Court can, and has, thrown out Executive Orders.

I'm not sure if Congress could nullify an executive order if they really tried, but they could probably rewrite the laws the executive order is at least officially based on. In extreme cases a blatantly unconstitutional executive order could be considered grounds for impeachment on that front.

How executive orders typically are thrown out is by the next President. Generally one of the first things on the agenda after taking office is reverse all the existing executive orders they don't like.
 
2013-01-16 10:52:29 AM  

miss diminutive: Obama's a king now? So I gather he recently abolished term limits and appointed an heir to the throne?


stay tune, boy-o
 
2013-01-16 10:52:41 AM  

WhoopAssWayne: 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.


I live with my mom
 
2013-01-16 10:53:00 AM  

Bf+: So...

According to Republicans, Obama is:
Socialist
Marxist
Arab
Fascist
Antichrist
Kenyan
Muslim
Blah
Usurper
Monarch

I left out Reptoid for now-- It's just a matter of time though.
Any others I missed?


According to the Big Spiffy List of All the Bad Things Fartbama Is (which I maintain), he is a Communist Nazi Muslim Socialist Peacenik Elitist Dhimmicrat Man-Child Egghead Blowhard Lightweight Girlyman Embarrassment Celebrity Jihadist Appeaser Jew Poseur Usurper Dictator Manchurian-Candidate Community-Organizer Cult-Leader Empty-Suit Empty-Chair Tyrant Bureaucrat Hypocrite Nerd Non-Citizen America-Hater Arugula-Muncher Marxist Terrorist Liberal Leftist Stalinist Welfare-Statist Narcissist Plagiarist Pottymouth Pantywaist Murderer War-Criminal Islamofascist Sleeper-Cell Ghetto-Trash Blame-America-Firster Fearmonger Racist Atheist Kenyan Keynesian Militant Flag-Burner Cyber-Luddite Child-Molester Anti-Catholic Drug-Lord Gun-Grabber Gun-Runner Lightbulb-Outlawer Disbarred-Lawyer Scarecrow Hipster Union-Thug Anti-Semite Media-Darling Fifth-Columnist Ponzi-Schemer Vacation-Abuser Lazy-Ass Flip-Flopper Black-Liberationist Abortionist Antichrist Coward Traitor Liar Trickster Death-Panelist Affirmative-Action-Case Evolutionist Fraudster Pothead Coke-Dealer Alinskyite Taxaholic Spendthrift Job-Killer Puppetmaster Soros-Minion Apology-Tourist Anti-Colonialist Subhuman Illegal-Alien Homogay Reptoid Hayes-Insulter Dog-Eater Weather-Controller Silver-Spoon Monarchist Teleprompter-Addict Chain-Smoker Yuengling-Swiller Hip-Hop-Barbecuer Taqqiya-Practitioner Hoodie-Condoner Stutterer Non-Tipper Binder-Clipper Pizza-Cheese-Eater Face-Blocker Havel-Snubber Malware-Propagator Autopen-User Armwrestler-Phobic Churchill-Bust-Returner Misogynist Greenie-Weenie State-Miscounter Asian-Name-Flubber Tchotchke-Seller Mom-Jeans-Wearer Grey-Poupon-Supremacist Long-Legged Mackdaddy.
 
2013-01-16 10:53:10 AM  

DamnYankees: 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.


But ours stuck better. The French ended up with a new king and a new aristocracy barely a generation later.
 
2013-01-16 10:53:15 AM  

david_gaithersburg: Infernalist: Having taken precious time to read through that pile of crap, I've come to the following conclusions:

1) The President is going to act via Executive Order, which is fully within the scope and authority of his office.

2) The GOP doesn't like this.

3) The GOP is going to make up something to try and impeach the President.

Did I miss anything of relevance?

.
You sound like a person not familiar with the laws of the US.


No, that's about right.
 
2013-01-16 10:53:24 AM  

DeathCipris: Oh right, dictatorship (monarch if they consider themselves regal).


I'm sure the Brits would appreciative to know they are living under a dictatorship. You should let them know.
 
2013-01-16 10:53:31 AM  

earthworm2.0: WhoopAssWayne: 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.

I live with my mom


You don't rate the bad ones, man. You ignore the bad ones.
 
2013-01-16 10:53:33 AM  

vpb: 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.


You must have found a much shorter version of the Declaration of Independence than I've been reading.
 
2013-01-16 10:54:16 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


no we didn't, idiot, we fought it to save that blind girl, Anne Frank.
 
2013-01-16 10:54:48 AM  
They've been acting like kings since JFK.
 
2013-01-16 10:55:06 AM  

STRYPERSWINE: btw, Rand Paul was opposed to Republican presidents bypassing Congress too.


Really? Citation?
 
2013-01-16 10:55:18 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 make a valid point, now since we do have representation, let congress pass or not pass bills for King President Obama to sign or veto as the system is design to do. Ruling by decree is not the way this government works
 
2013-01-16 10:55:21 AM  

clane: How are you going to like it when a president you don't agree with starts using their powers in the same dictating style.


oh i didn't like it when bush did it either.
(so i voted for barr then johnson.)
 
2013-01-16 10:55:38 AM  

Deep Contact: They've been acting like kings since JFK.


Have you heard of the emancipation proclamation?
 
2013-01-16 10:56:01 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.


Done in one. One thing I seem to find consistent about these new Republicans is their utter inability to grasp the most basic of historical and political concepts.

Why didn't Randy say anything when Bush invaded Iraq? Oh, that's right, that was "OK".
 
2013-01-16 10:56:46 AM  
he's ron paul's kid..of course he's a loon!
 
2013-01-16 10:56:49 AM  

mentula: so ... what did he think about bush, i wonder.


RINO
 
2013-01-16 10:57:12 AM  
What do you think they're going to charge him with? "Presidenting while being Black"?
 
2013-01-16 10:57:12 AM  

mentula: clane: How are you going to like it when a president you don't agree with starts using their powers in the same dictating style.

oh i didn't like it when bush did it either.
(so i voted for barr then johnson.)


So you believe the president of the US is not allowed to give an order to the organizations in the executive branch?
 
2013-01-16 10:57:16 AM  

DamnYankees: DeathCipris: Oh right, dictatorship (monarch if they consider themselves regal).

I'm sure the Brits would appreciative to know they are living under a dictatorship. You should let them know.


They have a Parliamentary government...and a prime minister. The royal family are more or less figureheads. Try again.
 
2013-01-16 10:57:25 AM  

Infernalist: earthworm2.0: WhoopAssWayne: 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.

I live with my mom

You don't rate the bad ones, man. You ignore the bad ones.


If it is a troll, its bad. But if it was meant as sarcasm its kind of ok.
 
2013-01-16 10:57:49 AM  

seadoo2006: 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.


That is false. Whoever told you that is content to lie to you. You should question their motives.
 
2013-01-16 10:57:49 AM  

Corvus: Deep Contact: They've been acting like kings since JFK.

Have you heard of the emancipation proclamation?


Seizing enemy property or material during a time of war by the commanding officer is nothing new.
 
2013-01-16 10:58:15 AM  

japlemon: miss diminutive: Obama's a king now? So I gather he recently abolished term limits and appointed an heir to the throne?

stay tune, boy-o


When do you start the revolution?
 
2013-01-16 10:58:21 AM  
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-16 10:58:22 AM  

DeathCipris: They have a Parliamentary government...and a prime minister. The royal family are more or less figureheads. Try again.


They had that in 1776 also. Lord North was the Prime Minister and ran the country.
 
2013-01-16 10:58:30 AM  
We could eliminate all the confusion and debate and arm embryos. 2, count em, 2 solutions in one.
 
2013-01-16 10:58:40 AM  

DeathCipris: DamnYankees: DeathCipris: Oh right, dictatorship (monarch if they consider themselves regal).

I'm sure the Brits would appreciative to know they are living under a dictatorship. You should let them know.

They have a Parliamentary government...and a prime minister. The royal family are more or less figureheads. Try again.


The have a monarchy that allows the parliament to run things. Try again.
 
2013-01-16 10:58:56 AM  

ccundiff: Infernalist: earthworm2.0: WhoopAssWayne: 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.

I live with my mom

You don't rate the bad ones, man. You ignore the bad ones.

If it is a troll, its bad. But if it was meant as sarcasm its kind of ok.


I disagree. Some trolls are 'good' at their job and they deserve recognition. It's a shame that Fark has so very few good trolls. It's a damned shame. The vast majority of them are complete crap and unworthy of a response.
 
2013-01-16 10:59:18 AM  

Brick-House: 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 make a valid point, now since we do have representation, let congress pass or not pass bills for King President Obama to sign or veto as the system is design to do. Ruling by decree is not the way this government works


cdn.motinetwork.net
 
2013-01-16 10:59:56 AM  
I meant this post in particular.
 
2013-01-16 11:00:16 AM  

DamnYankees: DeathCipris: Oh right, dictatorship (monarch if they consider themselves regal).

I'm sure the Brits would appreciative to know they are living under a dictatorship. You should let them know.


We are. But unfortunately not under Lizzie.
 
2013-01-16 11:00:39 AM  

Brick-House: Brick-House: 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 make a valid point, now since we do have representation, let congress pass or not pass bills for King President Obama to sign or veto as the system is design to do. Ruling by decree is not the way this government works

[cdn.motinetwork.net image 640x521]


You say 'socialist' like it's a bad thing.
 
2013-01-16 11:00:50 AM  

Antimatter: Corvus: Deep Contact: They've been acting like kings since JFK.

Have you heard of the emancipation proclamation?

Seizing enemy property or material during a time of war by the commanding officer is nothing new.


Neither are executive orders. The US constitution specifically states the US president is the chief executive. Why the hell wouldn't he be able to give directives to the executive branch?
 
2013-01-16 11:00:50 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?


Since you are obviously slow, I'll use small words.  Yes I am.  Obama was elected by a majority of Americans   You second amendment bet wetting mouth breathers have representation largely due to gerrymandered congressional districts, which have created an absolute race to the bottom.  Now go drive your hover round off a pier and leave real people alone.  Or I will stab you.

Now leave or I shall taunt you again.
 
2013-01-16 11:01:06 AM  

Corvus: The have a monarchy that allows the parliament to run things. Try again.


No they don't. Please.
 
2013-01-16 11:01:10 AM  

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


I think it was meant to be "hero" tag followed by an "ironic" tag but we are forced to suffer under a cruel and unfair one tag dictatorship.

Viva la revolucion!
 
2013-01-16 11:01:37 AM  
I think having a monarch is what we fought the American Revolution over

No.

America was a redheaded stepchild with no MP.

It was also the biggest tax dodge in history and the first time that the bankers who had funded it's settlement and development started high hatting their own government to get a bigger cut.

As far as representation, we managed something that mostly worked until the bankers whored that out, too and as far as the banking houses in England getting paid, touchdown. By the way, Randy, your premise reeks of some sh*t you dug out of Rush Limbaugh's waste paper bin. Seriously, the jig is up. Stop that. Go home.
 
2013-01-16 11:02:13 AM  

Infernalist: ccundiff: Infernalist: earthworm2.0: WhoopAssWayne: 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.

I live with my mom

You don't rate the bad ones, man. You ignore the bad ones.

If it is a troll, its bad. But if it was meant as sarcasm its kind of ok.

I disagree. Some trolls are 'good' at their job and they deserve recognition. It's a shame that Fark has so very few good trolls. It's a damned shame. The vast majority of them are complete crap and unworthy of a response.


Oops, Forgot to quote
I was referring to this post in particular. It was a bad troll, but wouldn't be horrible as sarcasm.
 
2013-01-16 11:02:50 AM  

Antimatter: Corvus: Deep Contact: They've been acting like kings since JFK.

Have you heard of the emancipation proclamation?

Seizing enemy property or material during a time of war by the commanding officer is nothing new.


The emancipation proclamation was an executive order.
 
2013-01-16 11:02:58 AM  

ccundiff: Infernalist: ccundiff: Infernalist: earthworm2.0: WhoopAssWayne: 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.

I live with my mom

You don't rate the bad ones, man. You ignore the bad ones.

If it is a troll, its bad. But if it was meant as sarcasm its kind of ok.

I disagree. Some trolls are 'good' at their job and they deserve recognition. It's a shame that Fark has so very few good trolls. It's a damned shame. The vast majority of them are complete crap and unworthy of a response.

Oops, Forgot to quote
I was referring to this post in particular. It was a bad troll, but wouldn't be horrible as sarcasm.


Ah. Well, fair enough.
 
2013-01-16 11:03:40 AM  
This stupid outdated document listed a few reasons, the King's Actions was pretty high up there:

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
 
2013-01-16 11:03:42 AM  

Infernalist: Brick-House: Brick-House: 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 make a valid point, now since we do have representation, let congress pass or not pass bills for King President Obama to sign or veto as the system is design to do. Ruling by decree is not the way this government works

[cdn.motinetwork.net image 640x521]

You say 'socialist' like it's a bad thing.


Not bad, just unwanted.
 
2013-01-16 11:04:54 AM  

SuperT: odinsposse: Kiwimann: Hey,

Quick question to sate my ignorance.

The linked article mentions the assault weapons ban which expired in 2004. Were the weapons used in the Aurora and Sandy Hook shootings covered by that ban?

Maybe? Here's the thing about the old AWB. It prohibited the sale of new assault weapons and magazines but grandfathered in ones that had already been made. So the high capacity magazines, and possibly the rifles used in Aurora and Sandy Hook may have been illegal. Assuming they weren't made before the ban went into effect. The shotgun and pistols those guys had would have been legal.

thinking about this, has anyone told these people that magazines are basically just metal boxes with a spring in them? or that there are already a gobillion "high capacity" versions of them in existence?


I thought magazines were periodical publications. Some of the high powered ones are like...Forbes and Popular Mechanics....
 
2013-01-16 11:06:25 AM  
OMG! Obama got his way on something! He's like our King now!

Shut up, Rand, you idiot.
 
2013-01-16 11:06:45 AM  

Brick-House: Infernalist: Brick-House: Brick-House: 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 make a valid point, now since we do have representation, let congress pass or not pass bills for King President Obama to sign or veto as the system is design to do. Ruling by decree is not the way this government works

[cdn.motinetwork.net image 640x521]

You say 'socialist' like it's a bad thing.

Not bad, just unwanted.


I kinda like Medicare, Social Security, Obamacare and the rest of the social safety net. Why do you hate these things?
 
2013-01-16 11:07:02 AM  

DamnYankees: Corvus: The have a monarchy that allows the parliament to run things. Try again.

No they don't. Please.


Your aware that the monarchy of uk gets to decide if someone can be PM or not and can veto any law?
 
2013-01-16 11:07:52 AM  

DiamondDave: So, you folks would be A-OK with GWB using executive orders to circumvent the Constitution?


Yes, we did put up with that, thanks.
 
2013-01-16 11:07:53 AM  
www.troycitydesign.com
 
2013-01-16 11:08:28 AM  

mentula: so ... what did he think about bush, i wonder.


Which one? King George I or King George II ?
 
2013-01-16 11:08:49 AM  
In all honesty, has there ever been a stupider man elected to the US Senate?  Yes I know thoat there are those who have gone senile/crazy while IN the office like Stom Thurmond and Jim Bunning, but has there ever been a man of such modest intellectual gifts and personal achievement elected in the first place?
 
2013-01-16 11:08:51 AM  
No, he seems to make no mention of imperialism in TFA, unfortunately.

Nice that he is speaking out on a unconstitutional power grab, but he seems to have no problem with empire building.
 
2013-01-16 11:09:07 AM  

Timmy the Tumor: ImpendingCynic: 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?

I was 11 years old, was more concerned with watching cartoons than whatever the global gag rule is.


DO keep in mind that saying "well, because someone did ________ 30 years ago, it's ok for this guy to do something similar now" is a pretty weak stance


A) executive orders cannot supersede current law or the constitution. To the extent that they do - they can be challenged in court by any aggrieved party.
B) How about GWB's executive orders instituting torture, warrant-less wiretaps of American citizens, extraordinary rendition, and indefinite detention of 'enemy combatants' that were declared not to be 'prisoners of war'. Do you remember those?

C) Rand Paul's complaint is over a non-existent order that wouldn't be enforceable if it did exist.
 
2013-01-16 11:09:15 AM  

Amos Quito: jylcat: TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!


[daviding.com image 475x281]


We've come a long way, baby.


Shouldn't that slogan have the word "NO" at the front of it? Or is this a photoshoppy joke? Do DC's plates really look like that?!
 
2013-01-16 11:09:17 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


I heard that it started when a bloke called Archie Duke shot an ostrich 'cause he was hungry.
 
2013-01-16 11:09:27 AM  
AN EXECUTIVE ORDER IS ONLY A DIRECTIVE TO THE DEPARTMENTS UNDER THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH HOW TO RUN THINGS IT DOESN'T MAKE OR CHANGE CURRENT LAW.

You people are really stupid thinking its some new thing or magical.
 
2013-01-16 11:09:32 AM  
Of course he opposes a king.

A wealthy aristocracy always competes with the throne for power and the right to screw the peasants first.
 
2013-01-16 11:10:02 AM  

Corvus: Your aware that the monarchy of uk gets to decide if someone can be PM or not and can veto any law?


They haven't done that in literally over 300 years. If they did so now no one would obey it.
 
2013-01-16 11:10:26 AM  

DeathCipris: 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.

What's that called when we don't have any effective representation in our government and the leader makes the decisions? Oh right, dictatorship (monarch if they consider themselves regal).
I hate siding with the fundies, but this one they are right about.


Are you suggesting that Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky is ineffective at representing his constituents, thereby enabling President Obama to rule this country as a dictator? If so, the people of Kentucky chose poorly.
 
2013-01-16 11:10:46 AM  
The definition of 'executive order' is to carry out any limited power the executive branch has, as per the constitution.

Rand Paul is a moron. Fark him.
 
2013-01-16 11:12:05 AM  
I am in favor of equality and sensible environmental legislation (left of center), but now that we're awash in weapons, restricting sales is just going to have the opposite effect of causing people to purchase more guns and clutch the ones they have more tightly. I say, let the babies have as much candy as they want. Why slam the barn door once all the horses are out in the field?
So, if you can have as many guns as you want, what is your idea of how to keep crazy people from going berserk and killing large groups of innocent people, gun enthusiasts? Or do you operate purely by negation?
 
2013-01-16 11:12:07 AM  

DamnYankees: Corvus: The have a monarchy that allows the parliament to run things. Try again.

No they don't. Please.


Ummm:

Under the unwritten British constitution, executive authority lies with the monarch, although this authority is exercised only by, or on the advice of, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet.[6] The Cabinet members advise the monarch as members of the Privy Council. They also exercise power directly as leaders of the Government Departments.


Like I said legally the monarchy is still in charge. Practically they are not. You are wrong.
 
2013-01-16 11:12:23 AM  

TheOther: Of course he opposes a king.

A wealthy aristocracy always competes with the throne for power and the right to screw the peasants first.


And so far, they've been amassing some serious scoreboard.
 
2013-01-16 11:12:33 AM  
Something, something fake Founders quote. Something, something out of context Founders quote.

See, the Founding Fathers already spoke in depth on technological and social issues that didn't exist in their time.
 
2013-01-16 11:12:37 AM  

BMFPitt: unconstitutional power grab,


Hi, Area Man.
 
2013-01-16 11:12:39 AM  

Corvus: Like I said legally the monarchy is still in charge. Practically they are not. You are wrong.


You actually didn't say "legally" in your Boobies.
 
2013-01-16 11:13:07 AM  

Pants full of macaroni!!: Bf+: So...

According to Republicans, Obama is:
Socialist
Marxist
Arab
Fascist
Antichrist
Kenyan
Muslim
Blah
Usurper
Monarch

I left out Reptoid for now-- It's just a matter of time though.
Any others I missed?

According to the Big Spiffy List of All the Bad Things Fartbama Is (which I maintain), he is a Communist Nazi Muslim Socialist Peacenik Elitist Dhimmicrat Man-Child Egghead Blowhard Lightweight Girlyman Embarrassment Celebrity Jihadist Appeaser Jew Poseur Usurper Dictator Manchurian-Candidate Community-Organizer Cult-Leader Empty-Suit Empty-Chair Tyrant Bureaucrat Hypocrite Nerd Non-Citizen America-Hater Arugula-Muncher Marxist Terrorist Liberal Leftist Stalinist Welfare-Statist Narcissist Plagiarist Pottymouth Pantywaist Murderer War-Criminal Islamofascist Sleeper-Cell Ghetto-Trash Blame-America-Firster Fearmonger Racist Atheist Kenyan Keynesian Militant Flag-Burner Cyber-Luddite Child-Molester Anti-Catholic Drug-Lord Gun-Grabber Gun-Runner Lightbulb-Outlawer Disbarred-Lawyer Scarecrow Hipster Union-Thug Anti-Semite Media-Darling Fifth-Columnist Ponzi-Schemer Vacation-Abuser Lazy-Ass Flip-Flopper Black-Liberationist Abortionist Antichrist Coward Traitor Liar Trickster Death-Panelist Affirmative-Action-Case Evolutionist Fraudster Pothead Coke-Dealer Alinskyite Taxaholic Spendthrift Job-Killer Puppetmaster Soros-Minion Apology-Tourist Anti-Colonialist Subhuman Illegal-Alien Homogay Reptoid Hayes-Insulter Dog-Eater Weather-Controller Silver-Spoon Monarchist Teleprompter-Addict Chain-Smoker Yuengling-Swiller Hip-Hop-Barbecuer Taqqiya-Practitioner Hoodie-Condoner Stutterer Non-Tipper Binder-Clipper Pizza-Cheese-Eater Face-Blocker Havel-Snubber Malware-Propagator Autopen-User Armwrestler-Phobic Churchill-Bust-Returner Misogynist Greenie-Weenie State-Miscounter Asian-Name-Flubber Tchotchke-Seller Mom-Jeans-Wearer Grey-Poupon-Supremacist Long-Legged Mackdaddy.


..of Ulm.
 
2013-01-16 11:13:15 AM  

Corvus: DamnYankees: Corvus: The have a monarchy that allows the parliament to run things. Try again.

No they don't. Please.

Ummm:

Under the unwritten British constitution, executive authority lies with the monarch, although this authority is exercised only by, or on the advice of, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet.[6] The Cabinet members advise the monarch as members of the Privy Council. They also exercise power directly as leaders of the Government Departments.


Like I said legally the monarchy is still in charge. Practically they are not. You are wrong.


He's technically correct. And that's the best form of correct.
 
2013-01-16 11:13:59 AM  

DamnYankees: Corvus: Your aware that the monarchy of uk gets to decide if someone can be PM or not and can veto any law?

They haven't done that in literally over 300 years. If they did so now no one would obey it.


So then you admit now what I said is right. Maybe you should reread what I actually said.
 
2013-01-16 11:14:07 AM  
I'm against having idiots in office, but that hasn't stopped Rand from holding his.
 
2013-01-16 11:15:18 AM  

DamnYankees: Corvus: Like I said legally the monarchy is still in charge. Practically they are not. You are wrong.

You actually didn't say "legally" in your Boobies.


Legally is all that matters. What is said was right. Holy crap admit you we're wrong and go on.
 
2013-01-16 11:15:23 AM  

Corvus: Deep Contact: They've been acting like kings since JFK.

Have you heard of the emancipation proclamation?


That's different from executive power today.
 
2013-01-16 11:15:34 AM  

brimed03

Trolling is a pretty disrespectful use of the Hero tag. I'm not impressed with Subby or the Mod who approved it.


Yeah! It should be reserved for beauty pageant contestants who claim to have mild autism
 
2013-01-16 11:15:46 AM  

Brick-House: Not bad, just unwanted.


then you shoulda made sure Romney won.

you didn't.

try again next time.
 
2013-01-16 11:17:03 AM  
I didn't shed my blood on Douche-Bag hill during the Second Jack Ass War to have to keep listening to this Rand Paul crap.
 
2013-01-16 11:17:15 AM  

Deep Contact: Corvus: Deep Contact: They've been acting like kings since JFK.

Have you heard of the emancipation proclamation?

That's different from executive power today.


You mean it wasn't a executive order by the president. It wasn't a directive by the president given to an organization under him? Please tell us how it wasn't.
 
2013-01-16 11:17:20 AM  

Day_Old_Dutchie: According to the Big Spiffy List of All the Bad Things Fartbama Is (which I maintain)...


And Limo One Is rolling on some donked out 24"s, yo. And they spinnin', yeah, boyee! Plus, he's been pestering the white women on staff at the White House with his obstreperous kneegrow, Muslim shenanigans. Playing jazz music at all hours.
 
2013-01-16 11:18:05 AM  

WhoopAssWayne: 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.


let me 'xplain something to you.  Using an executive order to enact a policy that the LAWS allow a president to enact is not creeping facism.   Facism is things like suspending Habeous Corpus for a US citizen arrested on Us Soial and then telling the courts that you have determined they have no legal right to review your actions.  Fascism is signing a law and then attaching a signing statement saying you are going to interpret the law as requiring you to do the exact opposite of what the text of the law says.   Fascism is endorsing a legal memorandum that concludes there are NO limits to executive power in wartime, and only the executive gets to determine when wartime is. Fascism is creating the "unitary executive" theory which says the president or any memeber of his executive branch can break the law and not be prosecuted because the Justice Dept is also an executive agency and since the executive is legally a single entity, a person can;t prosecute themselves
 
2013-01-16 11:18:19 AM  

Corvus: Legally is all that matters.


Really. Really?

If Queen Elizabeth went on TV and ordered the British military to invade the United States, do you think ANYONE would obey her? The answer is no. Her power to to this stuff is 0. I don't know what else "matters" could possibly mean.
 
2013-01-16 11:18:34 AM  

utharda: 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?

Since you are obviously slow, I'll use small words.  Yes I am.  Obama was elected by a majority of Americans   You second amendment bet wetting mouth breathers have representation largely due to gerrymandered congressional districts, which have created an absolute race to the bottom.  Now go drive your hover round off a pier and leave real people alone.  Or I will stab you.

Now leave or I shall taunt you again.


This is why I like conservative Republicans. They are honest about wanting a fundamentalist theocracy. Even the label "conservative" you just know what they are all about. Leftist authoritarians hides behind vernacular like "liberal" or even "progressive". What is that all about? In the end they really just aiming for the same exact police / survelliance state. The only question between them is who is going to be in charge.

Besides green party or a few black bloc anarchists there really is no true "liberal" movement in the US anymore. Its all two sides of the same shiat.
 
2013-01-16 11:18:38 AM  
cryinoutloud

ImpendingCynic: 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?

Administration of George Bush (1989-1993)
166 Total Executive Orders Issued

Administration of Ronald Reagan (1981-1989)
381 Total Executive Orders Issued

Administration of George W. Bush (2001-2009)
291 Total Executive orders Issued

Administration of Barack Obama (2009-Present)
144 Total Executive orders Issued

Looks like Obama is about average for the number of executive orders issued


Hah, you brought facts to a derp fight.
 
2013-01-16 11:19:11 AM  

Loucifer: I didn't shed my blood on Douche-Bag hill during the Second Jack Ass War to have to keep listening to this Rand Paul crap.


It was supposed to be the douche-bag to end all douche-bags.
 
2013-01-16 11:19:40 AM  
i.cdn.turner.com
"The person I wanted to be president wasn't elected, that means this is a MONARCHY!!!"
 
2013-01-16 11:20:27 AM  

clane: You gitty Liberals should head warning that your Obama is setting a precedent for future presidents. How are you going to like it when a president you don't agree with starts using their powers in the same dictating style. It will happen.


I guess you were out of town from 2001 to 2008.
 
2013-01-16 11:20:41 AM  

DamnYankees: Corvus: Legally is all that matters.

Really. Really?

If Queen Elizabeth went on TV and ordered the British military to invade the United States, do you think ANYONE would obey her? The answer is no. Her power to to this stuff is 0. I don't know what else "matters" could possibly mean.


Hey reread what I first said take some big deep breaths and get back to me.
 
2013-01-16 11:21:03 AM  
I think Rand Paul is making the contention that we don't have representation in Parliament. I'd have to agree with him.

Do your job you whining biatches.
 
2013-01-16 11:21:18 AM  
RAND PAUL!
 
2013-01-16 11:22:10 AM  

belome: OK, so I'll admit, I slept through my government class.

When an executive order is executed, what happens next? Say he tried to remove free speech from our country which would clearly violate the constitution. What checks and balances are there for this? Can it be reversed by congress? Does it go to a supreme court?

Or does it just become law and there is nothing that can be done about it? [I'm assuming the next president could remove it?]


The President has control over his cabinet, all executive-branch agencies, and the armed forces. Most of the alphabet soup (DEA, CIA, ATF... it's a long list) are under his authority. So if Obama orders the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) to (and this is an implausible and hyperbolic example) seize all guns, they will either (1) do it like they're ordered, or (2) not do it. Congress has no official enforcement arm, though they may convince/legislate certain agencies or local governments to defy executive orders--enforcement is basically the definition of the Executive Branch. There's no one they can send in to stop the ATF. The other branch of government, the Supreme Court, can do nothing more than fart on their $10,000 chairs. The executive branch is literally the monopoly on physical force in the government, which is why its powers are supposedly so very limited. The proliferation of the Executive Order and Federal Agencies is the way presidents have overcome their constitutional limitation in "times of need" like Japanese Internment and eugenic sterilization.

The only counterbalance to this power is in local enforcement. If a state opposes the initiative of the president, it can refuse to enforce an order or draw up the National Guard or a militia. That has had successes and failures throughout the history of the States.
 
2013-01-16 11:22:58 AM  

someonelse: BMFPitt: unconstitutional power grab,

Hi, Area Man.


Sorry if some people don't believe in limitless executive power.

Enjoy Bush's 4th term, asshat.
 
2013-01-16 11:23:28 AM  
Kentucky's previous junior senator, Jim Bunning was crazy because he had gone senile. Rand Paul is naturally crazy.
 
2013-01-16 11:23:37 AM  

DamnYankees: Corvus: Legally is all that matters.

Really. Really?

If Queen Elizabeth went on TV and ordered the British military to invade the United States, do you think ANYONE would obey her? The answer is no. Her power to to this stuff is 0. I don't know what else "matters" could possibly mean.


The queen power is zero?

Do you want to double down on that? Actually if the queen did that there would actually be a good amount of people in England supporting her (not saying a majority) and there would probably be a crisis. Not nothing would happen like you pretend.
 
2013-01-16 11:24:36 AM  

moothemagiccow: I Am The Bishop Of East Anglia: Can't believe a guy that dumb about the real world made it through med school.

You'd be surprised how airheaded med school students can be. It's pretty terrifying.


Well, the reason I decided not to try for med school was that I couldn't stand the other premeds. And then I married a doctor.

/They do throw nice parties though
//Totally agree with your point, for some of the docs I've heard about
 
2013-01-16 11:25:53 AM  

Corvus: mentula: clane: How are you going to like it when a president you don't agree with starts using their powers in the same dictating style.

oh i didn't like it when bush did it either.
(so i voted for barr then johnson.)

So you believe the president of the US is not allowed to give an order to the organizations in the executive branch?


hold on. i was reminding clane that s/he must apply the same standards to everyone, and that obama wasn't the president who started giving executive orders. if obama is 'dictating', so was bush, so were they all. giving executive order is, afaik, a perfectly legitimate function of the presidency. i'm sure there are limits, and what i wait for (from clane or anyone) is some explanation of how obama is exceeding limits that no previous president exceeded. i'm not holding my breath tho'.
 
2013-01-16 11:26:22 AM  

you have pee hands: IMO Obama is a fairly weak president relative to recent history in terms of how much influence he actually has.


Fixed for my own agenda. Of course that makes me a racist.
 
2013-01-16 11:26:42 AM  
How DARE the executive exercise executive measures. How DARE he?
 
2013-01-16 11:26:54 AM  

Bf+: So...

According to Republicans, Obama is:
Socialist
Marxist
Arab
Fascist
Antichrist
Kenyan
Muslim
Blah
Usurper
Monarch

I left out Reptoid for now-- It's just a matter of time though.
Any others I missed?


global3.memecdn.com
 
2013-01-16 11:28:18 AM  
We have to reclaim an America where white people made the decisions, the rich prospered and allowed us to pay or mortgages, Lawrence Welk was prime time, women were named Sally and Harriet and baked cookies in cute aprons and men had to scrub themselves with abrasives to get the grease from under their fingernails and had their medals on display on the mantle and if some uppity foreigner gave you any lip, you and Clancy would give him what for out in the alley! And soon.

Or, you know, build one where all the foreign nationals we kidnapped 300 years ago have a seat at the table, too, women aren't traded like chattel, war isn't the only economic stimulus that works, billionaires pay their taxes and we don't scrape the first 9 layers of the earth's crust off of everything and set it on fire to heat our homes.

It's a thought.

As far as this imaginary monarchy, the America we all think we live in was wrought from the desires of honest men to live without somebody's foot up their ass or yoke on their neck, and who knew that without change, you cease to grow and you wither. If anybody can show me ANYTHING like some honest men who are anywhere near anything like wealth or power who wouldn't cut their own guts out to stop any change at all, no matter how positive, I'll vote THEM in as king.
 
2013-01-16 11:28:35 AM  

belome: OK, so I'll admit, I slept through my government class.

When an executive order is executed, what happens next? Say he tried to remove free speech from our country which would clearly violate the constitution. What checks and balances are there for this? Can it be reversed by congress? Does it go to a supreme court?

Or does it just become law and there is nothing that can be done about it? [I'm assuming the next president could remove it?]


All it is the president giving a directive to the organizations of the executive branch. It's not a law or changes law.

It's like if the president of your company sent out a directive saying you had to put a cover letter on your TPS reports.


So it's laughable all these people pretending its some sort of usurping power because its the job of the president. It's the main job of the president in addition to hiring people.
 
2013-01-16 11:28:44 AM  
Is this the same thing as ordering eggs and bacon for breakfast and then telling everyone you don't like eating feces only to realize that you are not eating feces but instead you are eating regular eggs and bacon but proceed to make a delusional comparison that doesn't exist?
 
2013-01-16 11:28:48 AM  

Corvus: Deep Contact: They've been acting like kings since JFK.

Have you heard of the emancipation proclamation?


I don't listen to hip-hop.
 
2013-01-16 11:28:53 AM  
Okay guys, one more thing, this summer when you're being inundated with all this American bicentennial Fourth Of July brouhaha, don't forget what you're celebrating, and that's the fact that a bunch of slave-owning, aristocratic, white males didn't want to pay their taxes.
 
2013-01-16 11:29:51 AM  

Corvus: DamnYankees: Corvus: Legally is all that matters.

Really. Really?

If Queen Elizabeth went on TV and ordered the British military to invade the United States, do you think ANYONE would obey her? The answer is no. Her power to to this stuff is 0. I don't know what else "matters" could possibly mean.

The queen power is zero?

Do you want to double down on that? Actually if the queen did that there would actually be a good amount of people in England supporting her (not saying a majority) and there would probably be a crisis. Not nothing would happen like you pretend.


The Queen is also Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, and has the power to dismiss a government. It would indeed be interesting.
 
2013-01-16 11:30:18 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.


Oh. OH! I guess it would be awesome if Obama was king, then.
 
2013-01-16 11:31:06 AM  
As long as its a dem acting like he is a ruler not a leader then its OK.
 
2013-01-16 11:31:53 AM  
weknowmemes.com
 
2013-01-16 11:32:19 AM  

BMFPitt: someonelse: BMFPitt: unconstitutional power grab,

Hi, Area Man.

Sorry if some people don't believe in limitless executive power.


Care to define what unconstitutional action the president has undertaken? Or would you rather just continue to passionately defend what you imagine the Constitution to be?
 
2013-01-16 11:32:32 AM  

vpb: Most of the founding fathers didn't want independence at first


I don't know how you know what they wanted "at first". As evidence that they didn't want a king: they didn't make a king. They easily could have.

Yes, "hero" is appropriate for Rand Paul today. Executive action to curtail human right is a travesty (as would legislative action, too).
 
2013-01-16 11:33:03 AM  

Corvus: DeathCipris: DamnYankees: DeathCipris: Oh right, dictatorship (monarch if they consider themselves regal).

I'm sure the Brits would appreciative to know they are living under a dictatorship. You should let them know.

They have a Parliamentary government...and a prime minister. The royal family are more or less figureheads. Try again.

The have a monarchy that allows the parliament to run things. Try again.


Um, no. Ultimate power rests with parliament. Any royal prerogatives, or the monarchy itself can be removed by parliament. Westminister parliaments...that's just how they roll.
 
2013-01-16 11:33:48 AM  

DamnYankees: Corvus: Your aware that the monarchy of uk gets to decide if someone can be PM or not and can veto any law?

They haven't done that in literally over 300 years. If they did so now no one would obey it.


I actually like the monarch system the way it is now. It's like having a legitimate fallback government. I figure if Parliament ever goes full derp, the English (if not all the British) will probably be all, "Alright, you guys are fired. Really, we're actually going to hang you all, right now in this very building. Thanks for getting together in one place. King Charles, you're the interim ruler, but we're not putting up with you for more than two years while we figure this out. We're keeping this rope hanging right here from the speaker system, so watch it."
 
2013-01-16 11:33:57 AM  

V650: As long as its a dem acting like he is a ruler not a leader then its OK.


2.bp.blogspot.com

Partisan Hackery is the One True Way!

 
2013-01-16 11:34:42 AM  

DamnYankees: DeathCipris: They have a Parliamentary government...and a prime minister. The royal family are more or less figureheads. Try again.

They had that in 1776 also. Lord North was the Prime Minister and ran the country.


Then I don't see why I should tell that to England then. They have a parliament, a prime minister, and a figurehead royal family.
The fact remains when only one person gives orders and the people have no effective representation in government, that is called a dictatorship or absolute monarchy if regal/divine right is in play.
There were multiple reasons for going to war with England back in the day. Money was a big one. We were being taxed and the rich landowners in the colonies disliked it. Then there is the sort of "out of sight, out of mind" deal being that England wasn't really around or had more than a basic military presence in the colonies. The losses in the French and Indian war.
 
2013-01-16 11:34:46 AM  
Red Herring.
Everyone is so worked up over the Presidents misuse of an Executive Order, that he will probably not use it, and instead attack the issue from another angle. Perhaps one that the opposition is likely to be ready for.
 
2013-01-16 11:35:31 AM  
How normal people see President Obama:


kpbs.media.clients.ellingtoncms.com

How Teapublicans view him:
weblogs.baltimoresun.com
 
2013-01-16 11:36:48 AM  
Hard t believe this is the same Fark that was exploding in rage, because Bush wanted to flag people checking out bomb making books in a library. You back 100% monarch rule udner Obama, bypassing Congress completely, calling people names for disagreeing with abuse of power.

Nuts.
 
2013-01-16 11:37:35 AM  

utharda: 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?

Since you are obviously slow, I'll use small words.  Yes I am.  Obama was elected by a majority of Americans   You second amendment bet wetting mouth breathers have representation largely due to gerrymandered congressional districts, which have created an absolute race to the bottom.  Now go drive your hover round off a pier and leave real people alone.  Or I will stab you.

Now leave or I shall taunt you again.


ooohwehaveabadassoverhere.jpg


1.  you don't have any idea what my stance is on the second amendment
2.  you spell like a 3rd grader
3.  if you stab me, I'll shoot you with an assault rifle and a handgun with high-cap magazines
 
2013-01-16 11:37:48 AM  

Millennium: People fought the Revolutionary War for many reasons. Some of them were indeed not too keen on having a king. There was even a proposal floated during the drafting of the Constitution to have three co-equal Presidents, precisely because having one seemed too monarchical. On the other hand, there were other early proposals that actually had a king, though in an elected and limited office much like what we now call the President.


Dont be bringing in the facts here.
Funny how retards from fark like to pick on the Paul's. Seeing as they have done more than all of the retarded hippies here combined.
 
2013-01-16 11:37:50 AM  

Thunderpipes: Hard t believe this is the same Fark that was exploding in rage, because Bush wanted to flag people checking out bomb making books in a library. You back 100% monarch rule udner Obama, bypassing Congress completely, calling people names for disagreeing with abuse of power.

Nuts.


Didnt you defend Bush everytime he did something like that?
 
2013-01-16 11:38:01 AM  

ImpendingCynic: Were you OK with Reagan and GW Bush skipping around Congress on

[anything]

No
 
Bf+
2013-01-16 11:38:04 AM  

Pants full of macaroni!!: the Big Spiffy List of All the Bad Things Fartbama Is (which I maintain)


And maintain well!
Thanks!
 
2013-01-16 11:38:55 AM  
Hero?

More like troll. Submittard, you're an idiot.
 
2013-01-16 11:39:21 AM  

Thunderpipes: Hard t believe this is the same Fark that was exploding in rage, because Bush wanted to flag people checking out bomb making books in a library. You back 100% monarch rule udner Obama, bypassing Congress completely, calling people names for disagreeing with abuse of power.

Nuts.


images.wikia.com
 
2013-01-16 11:39:31 AM  
I remember that classic pledge, "No taxation with Heriditary Rule!"
 
2013-01-16 11:40:16 AM  

piperTom: vpb: Most of the founding fathers didn't want independence at first

I don't know how you know what they wanted "at first". As evidence that they didn't want a king: they didn't make a king. They easily could have.

Yes, "hero" is appropriate for Rand Paul today. Executive action to curtail human right is a travesty (as would legislative action, too).


What type of executive order do you imagine the president is going to enact on guns?
 
2013-01-16 11:40:52 AM  

Thunderpipes: Hard t believe this is the same Fark that was exploding in rage, because Bush wanted to flag people checking out bomb making books in a library. You back 100% monarch rule udner Obama, bypassing Congress completely, calling people names for disagreeing with abuse of power.

Nuts.


Okay, this is not bad. 7/10.
 
2013-01-16 11:40:56 AM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: On a side note, it's rather tragic that we then treat the citizens of DC in the exact same manner.


I'd be okay with exempting DC residents from federal income tax (to start with). Think how many people would move there with that as incentive!
 
2013-01-16 11:41:39 AM  

Deneb81: How about GWB's executive orders instituting torture, warrant-less wiretaps of American citizens, extraordinary rendition, and indefinite detention of 'enemy combatants' that were declared not to be 'prisoners of war'. Do you remember those?



Again, your use of the "relative filth" argument ("well, yeah, our guy is doing something that sucks, but it doesn't suck as much as what ______ did, so it's ok") is what is weak here.
 
2013-01-16 11:42:15 AM  

Precious Roy's Horse Dividers: How normal people see President Obama:
[kpbs.media.clients.ellingtoncms.com image 700x953]
How Teapublicans view him:
[weblogs.baltimoresun.com image 400x460]


www.moviesonline.ca
 
2013-01-16 11:42:16 AM  

bunner: Or, you know, build one where all the foreign nationals we kidnapped 300 years ago have a seat at the table, too


I would not eat food at such a table.
 
2013-01-16 11:42:23 AM  

someonelse: BMFPitt: someonelse: BMFPitt: unconstitutional power grab,

Hi, Area Man.

Sorry if some people don't believe in limitless executive power.

Care to define what unconstitutional action the president has undertaken? Or would you rather just continue to passionately defend what you imagine the Constitution to be?


With regards to the subject at hand, absolutely nothing. But his VP has openly discussed bypassing the legislature to create a de facto new law.

I am curious as to what you imagine I think inaccurately about the Constitution.
 
2013-01-16 11:43:17 AM  

fisker: Is this the same thing as ordering eggs and bacon for breakfast and then telling everyone you don't like eating feces only to realize that you are not eating feces but instead you are eating regular eggs and bacon but proceed to make a delusional comparison that doesn't exist?


Yes.
 
2013-01-16 11:43:28 AM  
KINGS DO NOT "ANNOUNCE PROPOSALS" YOU IDIOT

/ashamed he had to use caps
 
2013-01-16 11:44:49 AM  

Wangiss: DamnYankees: Corvus: Your aware that the monarchy of uk gets to decide if someone can be PM or not and can veto any law?

They haven't done that in literally over 300 years. If they did so now no one would obey it.

I actually like the monarch system the way it is now. It's like having a legitimate fallback government. I figure if Parliament ever goes full derp, the English (if not all the British) will probably be all, "Alright, you guys are fired. Really, we're actually going to hang you all, right now in this very building. Thanks for getting together in one place. King Charles, you're the interim ruler, but we're not putting up with you for more than two years while we figure this out. We're keeping this rope hanging right here from the speaker system, so watch it."


That actually doesn't sound that bad...nice fall back system. If our government goes full retard (which I hear you are never supposed to do) then we are sorta effed. It is a mixture of parliamentary government and constitutional monarchy.
 
2013-01-16 11:44:57 AM  

Bf+: Monarch

I left out Reptoid for now-- It's just a matter of time though.
Any others I missed?


tyrant

//NOT a Republican.
 
2013-01-16 11:46:23 AM  
Rand Paul seems to be conveniently forgetting the illegal war in Iraq. fark him.
 
2013-01-16 11:46:30 AM  

DamnYankees: 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.


Then again, they are on their fifth republic, while we are still on our first.

/A new constitutional convention would be quite exciting right about now.
 
2013-01-16 11:46:45 AM  

Timmy the Tumor: Again, your use of the "relative filth" argument ("well, yeah, our guy is doing something that sucks, but it doesn't suck as much as what ______ did, so it's ok") is what is weak here.


Having your country become known as the place where torture and indefinite detention is condoned---meh.

Outlawing super-duper guns: OMGWTF IMPEACH!!!
 
2013-01-16 11:46:51 AM  
You know who else was against having a king? The Romans, that's who. Instead they had two Consuls, elected for a single year's term to carry supreme executive power. Almost like having a President, except that there was two, presumably to avoid accusations of kingship.
 
2013-01-16 11:46:59 AM  

BMFPitt: But his VP has openly discussed bypassing the legislature to create a de facto new law.


No, he hasn't. And you need to go back to your teachers and ask, no, demand, that they do a better job explaining what executive orders are.
 
2013-01-16 11:47:27 AM  

Lost Thought 00: I remember that classic pledge, "No taxation with Heriditary Rule!"


I usually get Monarchy when I build the Oracle. By that time, I usually have at least a 10% tax rate.
 
2013-01-16 11:47:40 AM  

Rocket To Russia: Amos Quito: jylcat: TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!


[daviding.com image 475x281]


We've come a long way, baby.

Shouldn't that slogan have the word "NO" at the front of it? Or is this a photoshoppy joke? Do DC's plates really look like that?!


Oh man I'm such an idjit, I just learned that the District of Columbia has no representatives in Congress, but they do pay taxes. Really, I didn't know.
 
2013-01-16 11:48:04 AM  


justpiper.com

Unavailable for comment

 
2013-01-16 11:48:10 AM  

BMFPitt: I am curious as to what you imagine I think inaccurately about the Constitution.


You apparently think all executive orders are illegal.
 
2013-01-16 11:48:54 AM  

Snarfangel: Then again, they are on their fifth republic, while we are still on our first.


We're not really on our first. We just don't call it anything different.
 
2013-01-16 11:49:46 AM  

Rocket To Russia: Rocket To Russia: Amos Quito: jylcat: TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!


[daviding.com image 475x281]


We've come a long way, baby.

Shouldn't that slogan have the word "NO" at the front of it? Or is this a photoshoppy joke? Do DC's plates really look like that?!

Oh man I'm such an idjit, I just learned that the District of Columbia has no representatives in Congress, but they do pay taxes. Really, I didn't know.


Technically, they have a non-voting representative in the House.
 
2013-01-16 11:49:51 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


No, moran, we fought it to prevent the spread of Communism into southeast Asia.
 
2013-01-16 11:51:04 AM  

SuperT: thinking about this, has anyone told these people that magazines are basically just metal boxes with a spring in them? or that there are already a gobillion "high capacity" versions of them in existence?


That doesn't really matter. What Americans are looking for is something to assuage their guilt over the problem. They don't really want to fix the problem, because that would take a lot of money and time. Instead, they'd just like to be able to tell themselves that they tried to fix the problem and then they can go on with their self-centered existences.

Ever notice that when someone is killed with a handgun the news reports that it was a "gun" but if someone is killed with a non-handgun then they make sure to point out what type of gun it was?

Americans know that IF banning guns really did help things, then it would be logical to ban the guns that are causing the most deaths, which would be handguns by a heyooge margin. But nobody has the guts to try to ban handguns, so they go after the easy targets - the "assault weapons" and the large-capacity magazines.
 
2013-01-16 11:52:35 AM  
From my basic math skills, I count only 1 Obama in office compared to the number of Bushes, Roosevelts, and Adams.
 
2013-01-16 11:52:36 AM  

mittromneysdog: Technically, they have a non-voting representative in the House.


Technically, I have a non running van in the driveway.
 
2013-01-16 11:52:49 AM  

DiamondDave: So, you folks would be A-OK with GWB using executive orders to circumvent the Constitution?

What am I saying? Of course you would! Because you're not a bunch of hypocrites.


If the orders are unconstitutional, they won't stand anyways, but you already knew that, ya dick.
 
2013-01-16 11:52:58 AM  

Corvus: Deep Contact: They've been acting like kings since JFK.

Have you heard of the emancipation proclamation?


I don't listen to hip-hop.
 
2013-01-16 11:53:31 AM  

tricycleracer: that's the fact that a bunch of slave-owning, aristocratic, white males didn't want to pay their taxes.


You're forgetting the "without representation" part.

But I think that they were more shrewd than that. I think that they saw the endless bounty of the new land and said, "screw the Brits! Let's cut them out of the business deal and keep all of this for ourselves!"
 
2013-01-16 11:55:23 AM  

JerkStore: 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

No, moran, we fought it to prevent the spread of Communism into southeast Asia.


Ah, yes, the Jenga theory, where if you pull out one little block the entire capitalist society collapses.

Or was the the Lincoln Log theory, were you have a very drafty house if you lost one piece? Anyway, I know a game was involved. Checkers? Something like that, anyway.
 
2013-01-16 11:55:30 AM  
So I guess he doesn't mind having a plutocracy instead?
 
2013-01-16 11:55:36 AM  

Corvus: DamnYankees: Corvus: The have a monarchy that allows the parliament to run things. Try again.

No they don't. Please.

Your aware that the monarchy of uk gets to decide if someone can be PM or not and can veto any law?


The office of PM is indeed chosen by the monarch, and that choice then has nothing at all but the chance to attempt to form a government. Parliament does not have to accept their leadership. The office pf PM bears little relationship to the president of a republic. As far as veto over law, please. Parliament retains power through the purse, if nothing else. They set the budget for the royal family.
 
2013-01-16 11:56:48 AM  

someonelse: BMFPitt: But his VP has openly discussed bypassing the legislature to create a de facto new law.

No, he hasn't. And you need to go back to your teachers and ask, no, demand, that they do a better job explaining what executive orders are.


I know what they are supposed to be. And it is overwhelmingly likely that they will think better of it and back off.

But if you think that, for example, Executive Order 13440 was not an unconstitutional act, nor a de facto new law, then I would love to hear your reasoning.
 
2013-01-16 11:57:02 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?


NO. However, just out of curiosity, I did some googling to see just how many executive orders King Obama has issued, and it turns out that he's issued fewer than any other president in the last 100 years, so I'm not going to get my panties all in a bunch just yet...
 
2013-01-16 11:57:05 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.


He's not an idiot - he's unencumbered by the burdens of reality, free to imagine what he wants.
 
2013-01-16 11:57:16 AM  

F*CK YOU RAND PAUL YOU COCK

 
2013-01-16 11:57:16 AM  

Lando Lincoln: tricycleracer: that's the fact that a bunch of slave-owning, aristocratic, white males didn't want to pay their taxes.

You're forgetting the "without representation" part.

But I think that they were more shrewd than that. I think that they saw the endless bounty of the new land and said, "screw the Brits! Let's cut them out of the business deal and keep all of this for ourselves!"


That's a quote from Dazed and Confused.
 
2013-01-16 11:58:04 AM  

jayhawk88: What other magical things that will never happen are you against, Rand? Are you against Obama ripping the head off a lamb and feasting on it's still-warm blood during the inauguration? Are you against Obama revealing himself as the alien leader of the Rigilian Federation, and ordering his gunships to begin rounding up slaves for use in Vespene Gas factories?


They require more after all

/I love the smell of nostalgia in the morning
 
2013-01-16 11:58:41 AM  

DeathCipris: Wangiss: DamnYankees: Corvus: Your aware that the monarchy of uk gets to decide if someone can be PM or not and can veto any law?

They haven't done that in literally over 300 years. If they did so now no one would obey it.

I actually like the monarch system the way it is now. It's like having a legitimate fallback government. I figure if Parliament ever goes full derp, the English (if not all the British) will probably be all, "Alright, you guys are fired. Really, we're actually going to hang you all, right now in this very building. Thanks for getting together in one place. King Charles, you're the interim ruler, but we're not putting up with you for more than two years while we figure this out. We're keeping this rope hanging right here from the speaker system, so watch it."

That actually doesn't sound that bad...nice fall back system. If our government goes full retard (which I hear you are never supposed to do) then we are sorta effed. It is a mixture of parliamentary government and constitutional monarchy.


We would break into nations, I think. There are a few really interesting sociological break-outs I've seen--one for nine nations, one for four that I can't find.

The way American ideologies break by geography is too darn convenient to pass up. Let the Cowboys have their Castle Doctrine and the Nor'easters have their Plutocrat Liberalism; I don't care. There would be some mass migration while the Massachusetts Catholics absconded to warmer, more religious climes, trading places with poor welfare-staters looking for equality up North. Montana and Wyoming wouldn't change a bit. No more need for Blue or Red states, just nation states with a more cohesive and stable ideology. Then we could have a peaceful relationship like the European Union has (sometimes barely) managed for 60 years. I think it would be great to have a federation of nation states instead of the One Ideological Nation that was taken over by powers I don't care to list long ago. You may say that I'm a dreamer...
 
2013-01-16 11:59:19 AM  
Drudge is reporting one of the proposals is to require doctors to ask their patients if they have a gun in their home.

... And here people thought Obamacare was about health care.


What I worry is that this is that the party in control could use government control over doctors and access to health care to force their politics on people.  In the above example, the government denies health care to gun owners.  Why would the government be pressing doctors to find out if their patients own a gun or not?  How is that at all relevant to caring for them outside of treating an actual gunshot wound?
 
2013-01-16 11:59:25 AM  

Lando Lincoln: SuperT: thinking about this, has anyone told these people that magazines are basically just metal boxes with a spring in them? or that there are already a gobillion "high capacity" versions of them in existence?

That doesn't really matter. What Americans are looking for is something to assuage their guilt over the problem. They don't really want to fix the problem, because that would take a lot of money and time. Instead, they'd just like to be able to tell themselves that they tried to fix the problem and then they can go on with their self-centered existences.

Ever notice that when someone is killed with a handgun the news reports that it was a "gun" but if someone is killed with a non-handgun then they make sure to point out what type of gun it was?

Americans know that IF banning guns really did help things, then it would be logical to ban the guns that are causing the most deaths, which would be handguns by a heyooge margin. But nobody has the guts to try to ban handguns, so they go after the easy targets - the "assault weapons" and the large-capacity magazines.


It is far easier to have a debate about the tools used, as opposed to discuss the real difficulties we face. The debate needs to be about crime. About violent crime, and what leads folks to decide that it IS an alternative. That means a discussion on economic security, on health care both physical and mental, that means looking at economic mobility, and the reasons folks turn to violent crime as a method to enhance their lot, as well as looking at what sort of society we've created.

That's hard. That's a scary conversation, because a LOT of folks profit handily from the way things are set up right now, and examining it might lead us to the conclusion that maybe it's not a terribly healthy society. No one wants to admit that. No one wants to look too closely even NEAR that curtain, let alone look behind it. Because if we do, we might actually decide that something has to be done to fix that. And having ignored it for so long, it might lead folks to conclude that we've done a botched job of keeping an eye on things, and that we've been pretty much ignoring a lot of pain and suffering for fairly superficial reasons.

No one wants to even admit that we've pooped in our own dog dish, and certainly no one wants to clean it up. So, better, we talk about tools used in the commission of crimes, rather than look to why folks commit them in the first place.
 
2013-01-16 12:00:03 PM  

SlothB77: In the above example, the government denies health care to gun owners.


LOLWUT
 
2013-01-16 12:00:29 PM  

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?


Actually President Obama cannot enact any executive order which does not come from an authority already given to him from congress as law. So in all reality he is not "skipping around congress" but choosing how he enforces existing law, which is his job as written in the constitution. If any of ths "enforcement" of existing laws by executive order violates the constitution, the Supreme Court can deem it unconstitutional and force that enforcement to stop.
 
2013-01-16 12:00:32 PM  

Brick-House: 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 make a valid point, now since we do have representation, let congress pass or not pass bills for King President Obama to sign or veto as the system is design to do. Ruling by decree is not the way this government works


Our congress wouldn't agree on a declaration that puppies are cute unless they got 40B of pork smacked on to it. The GOP filibusters everything, the House doesn't even bother to vote on more than 70 percent of bills. The idea that congress is the solution is just plain silly.
 
2013-01-16 12:00:43 PM  

someonelse: BMFPitt: I am curious as to what you imagine I think inaccurately about the Constitution.

You apparently think all executive orders are illegal.


Is that a half-hearted strawman, or do you not understand the difference between a specific case and a blanket statement?
 
2013-01-16 12:02:06 PM  

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?


Of course they are. You wouldnt hear a peep if someone triied the end run around abortion im sure.

They will however, use stupid slang like they are talking to a hillbilly to paint you as their own conservative boogie man, while the cowards dangle their wrists limply and try to take guns away.
 
2013-01-16 12:02:09 PM  
Are the greenlightey people still drunk?

Am I still drunk?

Hero tag?!?

Nonono, I'm not still drunk... I need to start drinking.
 
2013-01-16 12:02:54 PM  

Amos Quito: jylcat: TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!

But ok, thanks for playing Rand Paul.


[daviding.com image 475x281]


We've come a long way, baby.


We may have made it for a time but when people inside and outside of the country can counterfeit what ever amount they want to get their way you have TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.

When they counterfeit the money supply they don't add anything to our pile of stuff they just shift the property lines.
 
2013-01-16 12:03:09 PM  

david_gaithersburg: I can't wait until this guy is president.


Good thing for us that the rest of the country isn't farking retarded like Florida.
 
2013-01-16 12:03:34 PM  
I think the potential effectiveness of a plan is directly related to how pissed off the GOP gets as they tend to protect the superficial and denounce anything approaching "critical thinking". So this has potential.

And there is plenty of profit to be made in prolonging the problem.
 
2013-01-16 12:03:48 PM  

Corvus: DamnYankees: Corvus: Like I said legally the monarchy is still in charge. Practically they are not. You are wrong.

You actually didn't say "legally" in your Boobies.

Legally is all that matters. What is said was right. Holy crap admit you we're wrong and go on.


For the sake of an argument, legal may be all that matters, but because you stated that the crown lets parliament run things it implies real world reality. Parliament has the right to refuse to finance the royals or to abolish them.
 
2013-01-16 12:04:22 PM  

Wangiss: DeathCipris: Wangiss: DamnYankees: Corvus: Your aware that the monarchy of uk gets to decide if someone can be PM or not and can veto any law?

They haven't done that in literally over 300 years. If they did so now no one would obey it.

I actually like the monarch system the way it is now. It's like having a legitimate fallback government. I figure if Parliament ever goes full derp, the English (if not all the British) will probably be all, "Alright, you guys are fired. Really, we're actually going to hang you all, right now in this very building. Thanks for getting together in one place. King Charles, you're the interim ruler, but we're not putting up with you for more than two years while we figure this out. We're keeping this rope hanging right here from the speaker system, so watch it."

That actually doesn't sound that bad...nice fall back system. If our government goes full retard (which I hear you are never supposed to do) then we are sorta effed. It is a mixture of parliamentary government and constitutional monarchy.

We would break into nations, I think. There are a few really interesting sociological break-outs I've seen--one for nine nations, one for four that I can't find.

The way American ideologies break by geography is too darn convenient to pass up. Let the Cowboys have their Castle Doctrine and the Nor'easters have their Plutocrat Liberalism; I don't care. There would be some mass migration while the Massachusetts Catholics absconded to warmer, more religious climes, trading places with poor welfare-staters looking for equality up North. Montana and Wyoming wouldn't change a bit. No more need for Blue or Red states, just nation states with a more cohesive and stable ideology. Then we could have a peaceful relationship like the European Union has (sometimes barely) managed for 60 years. I think it would be great to have a federation of nation states instead of the One Ideological Nation that was taken over by powers I don't care to lis ...


We'd end up with a southern theocracy that would be rampant with poverty and disease and probably down on the charts in regards to standards of living. We'd have an invasion of the north by the south within 20 years.
 
2013-01-16 12:05:14 PM  

SlothB77: Drudge is reporting


media.giantbomb.com
 
2013-01-16 12:05:55 PM  

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?


I guess if a Republican is in office next, he could skip around Congress and the Supreme Court, and make abortions illegal.
That would be ok, right?

Right?

Even though the revolution was over taxation, the founding fathers obviously had no love for the monarchy. Otherwise, we would have kings, and not an elected president and congress.