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

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

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



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

Archived thread
 
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.


0/10
 
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.

0/10


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.

0/10

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.

0/10

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.

0/10

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.

0/10

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.
 
2013-01-16 12:06:15 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 ...


Mmm...yea, I would leave that clusterfark before it got off the ground. It is going to be hell trying to get boundaries and then there will be disagreements in politics, possession of manufacturing bases, monetary/funding problems, laws, and that is just getting started.
 
2013-01-16 12:06:29 PM  
Obama is the biggest piece of shiat this country has ever seen
Biden has his nose so far up Obamas ass that hes starting to smell like him
now he's on tv with children on stage with him, what an ass, and a coward, where are his children, oh that's right, their in school with armed guards protecting them, your kids don't deserve that kind of protection, their not worthy
how many semiautomatic guns are around him with more than 7 rounds, yet again he's worthy, you're not
 
2013-01-16 12:06:36 PM  
www.ladyofthecake.com

It's good to be the king.
 
2013-01-16 12:06:54 PM  

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. 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.


Just for completeness

Administration of Bill Clinton (1993-2001)
364 Total Executive orders Issued
 
2013-01-16 12:07:28 PM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: 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.


They tried to make Washington into a King. Several times. He refused each time and set an example for the men who followed him.

Look it up.
 
2013-01-16 12:07:29 PM  
This king/monarch thing must be the new derptastic talking point being handed down by the Koch brothers, because he's not the only one who's spewed this idiocy today.
 
2013-01-16 12:08:28 PM  
And lets not forget that Washington was basically asked to be "king", and refused. And by king I basically mean president for life.
 
2013-01-16 12:09:09 PM  

ALC59: Obama is the biggest piece of shiat this country has ever seen
Biden has his nose so far up Obamas ass that hes starting to smell like him
now he's on tv with children on stage with him, what an ass, and a coward, where are his children, oh that's right, their in school with armed guards protecting them, your kids don't deserve that kind of protection, their not worthy
how many semiautomatic guns are around him with more than 7 rounds, yet again he's worthy, you're not


When you hold the codes for the largest nuclear arsenal in the history of the world, then you and your kids can have Secret Service protection, too.
 
2013-01-16 12:09:32 PM  

Magorn: 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


When did Obama do all those things? Wow, he really is a jack-booted Fascist isn't he? Quick, grab your guns and meet me at the compound!

\oh, wait - that was that brush-clearing guy, wasn't it?
\\nevermind, those things were all fine
 
2013-01-16 12:09:36 PM  

ALC59: Obama is the biggest piece of shiat this country has ever seen
Biden has his nose so far up Obamas ass that hes starting to smell like him
now he's on tv with children on stage with him, what an ass, and a coward, where are his children, oh that's right, their in school with armed guards protecting them, your kids don't deserve that kind of protection, their not worthy
how many semiautomatic guns are around him with more than 7 rounds, yet again he's worthy, you're not


ALC59 are your kids under threat from people who hate you, and your country on a daily basis?
 
2013-01-16 12:09:36 PM  
Every so often, some fringe neocon GOPer runs into the room, cuts a huge fart and says "Whaddaya think about THAT!?" and it's always the same thing we thought the last time. PU. Light a match, jerk.
 
2013-01-16 12:09:36 PM  
I don't have a problem in general with the use of Executive Orders, I'm just a little uncomfortable with this one (if it happens).  I'd much prefer the issue be analyzed and fully debated in Congress, than have one side say "don't you take away our guns, you fascists" and the other say "well, our party says we should hate guns, and those kids got shot, so we need to do something now!"

Example...the stats being thrown around about "there were more assault weapons and high capacity magazines seized by law enforcement in the years after the ban than there were during the ban."

Well, duh.  There were a lot more "assault weapons" and high-cap magazines MADE after the ban because why they hell would companies make them if they couldn;t make a profit selling them.

Well, that and I doubt that any plan developed by Joe Biden in a month is going to be fully representative of what America as a whole wants and needs.  Just like I would if Rand Paul developed a plan in a month.
 
2013-01-16 12:10:13 PM  
List of Things Republicans Don't Understand (LTRDU for short)

(Compiled by Sock Ruh Tease) Link

Taxes
Democrats
Independents
Race relations
Spanish
Social welfare
Christianity
Pretty much every religion
The US Constitution
Warfare
Fighting terrorism
Human reproductive system
Biology
Women's rights
Laffer curve
Fiat money
Buoyancy
Vegetables
Physics
Photoshop
Birth certificates
Birf certifcts
English
Tea bags
Tricornes
The poor
Lots of dogs
Newspapers
Bolt-action rifles
Feral pigs
New Yorkers
People from New Jersey
The weather
Climate change
Environmental regulations
Chemistry
Descent
Best Parts
Patriotic
Yellow Ribbons
Magnets
Patriotism
Movies
Books
Words
Excessively long lists
Teleprompters
Chairs
Giant steel slabs
Fark
American History
 
2013-01-16 12:10:36 PM  

Precious Roy's Horse Dividers: How Teapublicans view him:


King Booker is awesome. Sharmel is hawt. How is that a bad thing?
 
2013-01-16 12:11:38 PM  

Infernalist: They tried to make Washington into a King. Several times. He refused each time and set an examp


It was not "King" it was president for life. He would not have the same powers as a monarch.
 
2013-01-16 12:12:55 PM  
piperTom: "Executive action to curtail human right is a travesty (as would legislative action, too)."

You may not be aware, but Congress writes laws and the President (Chief Executive) oversees their implementation. That's the prescribed separation of powers as enshrined in the Constitution.
Taking executive action within the bounds defined by those laws *is his farking job*. If he can curtail a human right with (constitutional) executive action, it's only because the laws as written allow or demand it. (See: Patriot Act / 2011 NDAA / 2012 NDAA / etc) Simply deciding to more strictly enforce aspects of existing laws is not, de facto, unconstitutional.

So, as usual, you can take your fears about the President being a tyrant back to the talking point factories you got them from and demand those *legislators* do *their* damn job, if you don't like the power *they have given* to the President.

/ same goes for those who were only upset at GWB over the aforementioned legislative tragedies
// and are curiously silent about that shiat now that Obama is in charge
 
2013-01-16 12:12:57 PM  

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.


Lol! [ohwaityoureserious.jpg]

/magna carta, study it up
 
2013-01-16 12:13:30 PM  

Snarfangel: 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.


No, stupid, it was the Mouse Trap theory in which a needlessly complicated, nominally interesting game becomes an entirely useless piece of junk upon losing one piece.
 
2013-01-16 12:13:31 PM  

ALC59: Obama is the biggest piece of shiat this country has ever seen
Biden has his nose so far up Obamas ass that hes starting to smell like him
now he's on tv with children on stage with him, what an ass, and a coward, where are his children, oh that's right, their in school with armed guards protecting them, your kids don't deserve that kind of protection, their not worthy
how many semiautomatic guns are around him with more than 7 rounds, yet again he's worthy, you're not


so hire private security contractors as bodygaurds for your children, if you think they are under the same kind of threat as the presidents children.
 
2013-01-16 12:13:36 PM  

BMFPitt: 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.


So, because previous executive orders were unconstitutional, any new one by President Obama will be, too?

By the way, I love the CYA move of saying that if the administration doesn't act through executive order, it's because they thought better of it.
 
2013-01-16 12:13:53 PM  

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.


In reality, the queen could, in fact, stop waving, flip you off, and sic her Corgis on you. Beyond that, not much.
 
2013-01-16 12:15:13 PM  

BMFPitt: 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?


You're the one who is sure the as-yet-nonexistent executive orders will be unconstitutional. Just because.
 
2013-01-16 12:15:57 PM  

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


About the only thing weaker is "it's ok when this guy does it because he's on my side, but not when you're guy does it."
 
2013-01-16 12:16:28 PM  
What's scary is some people in here sound like they would be OK with the King idea.

Anyway, here is the list of executive orders Obama is tossing out there.

All in all, not too much to get worked up over.


1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
11. Nominate an ATF director.
12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.
13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.
 
2013-01-16 12:17:09 PM  

Timmy the Tumor: I don't have a problem in general with the use of Executive Orders, I'm just a little uncomfortable with this one (if it happens).


Maybe we could, I dunno, wait and find out what it is first. Nah, that's crazy talk.
 
2013-01-16 12:18:18 PM  

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.


this is beyond retarded
 
2013-01-16 12:20:32 PM  

StokeyBob: 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.



The Fed is doing exactly what it was designed to do.

By its owners.
 
2013-01-16 12:20:32 PM  
The part that people seem to forget is that the Executive Branch is set up with certain checks and balances on the Congressional and Judicial Branches.
 
2013-01-16 12:21:13 PM  
SlothB77, thank you. You're batshiat crazy, but thank you.
 
2013-01-16 12:21:18 PM  

cleek: 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.

this is beyond retarded


No, that's thunderpipes. He actually believes he is the internet version or Rush Limbaugh. Seriously. I put him on ignore years ago.
 
2013-01-16 12:21:31 PM  

SlothB77: Drudge is reporting one of the proposals is to require doctors to ask their patients if they have a gun in their home.


Abe Vigoda's Ghost: 16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.


LOL, Drudge
 
2013-01-16 12:22:02 PM  
When you spend 2 years doing jack shiat and then give every indication that 'jack shiat' is going to be the running theme for the next 2 years, then yes, people are going to approve of a President who actually tries to accomplish something.
 
2013-01-16 12:23:01 PM  

Amos Quito: The Fed is doing exactly what it was designed to do.

By its owners.


Shh. If people start noticing that this country is being bought out from under them with a load of bad IOUs shot out of a confetti cannon, they might get all obstreperous.
 
2013-01-16 12:24:02 PM  

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.


Funny, considering the king is addressed in the Declaration of Independence and lack of representation in parliament is not mentioned once. But enough about historical documents.
 
2013-01-16 12:24:09 PM  

someonelse: So, because previous executive orders were unconstitutional, any new one by President Obama will be, too?


That is what you actually believe.

By the way, I love the CYA move of saying that if the administration doesn't act through executive order, it's because they thought better of it.

Ummm, OK.

someonelse: You're the one who is sure the as-yet-nonexistent executive orders will be unconstitutional. Just because.


Really? That's an interesting delusion.
 
2013-01-16 12:24:33 PM  

Corvus: 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.


It was just his martial power to suspend civil law in the states which were in rebellion. It didn't affect the states that were not in rebellion.
 
2013-01-16 12:24:43 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: [lazytraders.com image 327x254]


Aunt Sally?

/obscure?
 
2013-01-16 12:25:47 PM  
Imagine where America would be today if slavery was enshrined in the Constitution...
 
2013-01-16 12:26:05 PM  

SlothB77: 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?


While it'd be stupid to make every doctor ask that question by default, I don't see how it's "not at all relevant." Psychiatrists and GPs will get to know their patients on a fairly deep level. What's wrong with them being able to find out whether or not a patient owns a gun if they've noticed what they'd consider a risk of self-harm or harm to others?

/Ignoring the first three words of your post.
 
2013-01-16 12:27:10 PM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: What's scary is some people in here sound like they would be OK with the King idea.



He's already their king! Stupid people love him. The media already said he is "Sort of a God".

i47.tinypic.com
 
2013-01-16 12:28:29 PM  
Primary causes of the US Revolution ... wasn't it
a) the debts held in London over the colonies (a motivator to rebel)
b) lack of representation in the UK parliament

And didn't the US spend the first 20 years as a lose republic with monarchical tendencies.

I think Jefferson was worried that the President would become a King like role, whereas Adams had no issue with that.

There was nothing to prevent the US from becoming a monarchy, as that wasn't the issue.
 
2013-01-16 12:28:48 PM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: 23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.


FASHIZM!
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-01-16 12:29:27 PM  

theknuckler_33: 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.


Oh my goddess, THIS. It must of been nice to sleep through the GWB presidency.
 
2013-01-16 12:29:29 PM  

BMFPitt: someonelse: You're the one who is sure the as-yet-nonexistent executive orders will be unconstitutional. Just because.

Really? That's an interesting delusion.


Did you not refer to President Obama making an "unconstitutional power grab"? You based this assessment on ...
 
2013-01-16 12:29:58 PM  
The machinery is money, the government is money and governance is jackboots and NOBODY gives a rat's airborne ass about all of that history book sh*t anymore. Not Rand Paul, not the people who throw money at him to talk cross eyed badger spit, not congress and not the poor saps sweating the rent. Nobody. It has become moot, redundant and is starting to show the frayed edges of a fairy tale and nobody who runs this joint WANTS a king, but they sure do need to keep the serfs barking at each other about "z0mG teh K1NG fartbongo!1!" or any other stick they can use to stir the sh*t pail.
 
2013-01-16 12:30:06 PM  
I'll listen to Obama when he agrees to close the Fast & Furious loophole.
 
2013-01-16 12:30:11 PM  
God this is ridiculous. This reminded me of a derptasic FB posting by someone I went to High School with when Obama was elected:

"I will NOT call him president. HE IS NOT MY PRESIDENT. He wasn't my president before this election, he will not be my president this election and he will not be my ex-president. He will not be my king, my ruler.....NOTHING!!!"

Another posting summarized:
"But, in the mean time...on a very good note and a very happy note....HE CAN NOT BE ELECTED FOR A THIRD TERM!!!!! We can overcome the obstacles in the way, because we have a greater power on our side and it is not "the ruler obama", it is God!!!! So, lets all pray, have faith and look forward to no more Obama in four years. KARMA IS A biatch! :) #TeamRomney2016"

Granted I was a kid when Clinton was elected, but I don't remember all these "monarchy" rhetoric while he was in office. For both him and Bush it was more "dumb redneck" heckling.

Is this hidden racism or more the internet and FB has given every angry idiot a soapbox? Thoughts?
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-01-16 12:30:23 PM  

900RR: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: What's scary is some people in here sound like they would be OK with the King idea.

He's already their king! Stupid people love him. The media already said he is "Sort of a God".

[i47.tinypic.com image 640x676]


Plonk. I hope I never read anything you post again.. ever.
 
2013-01-16 12:31:39 PM  

SlothB77: 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?


Doctors do treat people for things other than physical afflictions. More on this story at 11.

/mental illnesses sucks
 
2013-01-16 12:31:43 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?


The Republicans have responded to the Newtown shooting with a "working as intended" approach. All public polling disagrees with them on this, and if Obama's going to side with the people against the Congress...meh. It's not great, but I won't lose any sleep over it.
 
2013-01-16 12:32:20 PM  
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-01-16 12:32:44 PM  

shortymac: Is this hidden racism or more the internet and FB has given every angry idiot a soapbox? Thoughts?


Yes.
 
2013-01-16 12:33:02 PM  

shortymac: God this is ridiculous. This reminded me of a derptasic FB posting by someone I went to High School with when Obama was elected:

"I will NOT call him president. HE IS NOT MY PRESIDENT. He wasn't my president before this election, he will not be my president this election and he will not be my ex-president. He will not be my king, my ruler.....NOTHING!!!"

Another posting summarized:
"But, in the mean time...on a very good note and a very happy note....HE CAN NOT BE ELECTED FOR A THIRD TERM!!!!! We can overcome the obstacles in the way, because we have a greater power on our side and it is not "the ruler obama", it is God!!!! So, lets all pray, have faith and look forward to no more Obama in four years. KARMA IS A biatch! :) #TeamRomney2016"

Granted I was a kid when Clinton was elected, but I don't remember all these "monarchy" rhetoric while he was in office. For both him and Bush it was more "dumb redneck" heckling.

Is this hidden racism or more the internet and FB has given every angry idiot a soapbox? Thoughts?


That's the only logical conclusion I can come up with based on the fact that, objectively, Obama is a left-leaning, pro-business, centrist, who up until about a month ago, couldn't give two shiats about guns. The man is half-black and that just pisses people off with righteous indignation.
 
2013-01-16 12:33:03 PM  

d23: 900RR: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: What's scary is some people in here sound like they would be OK with the King idea.

He's already their king! Stupid people love him. The media already said he is "Sort of a God".

[i47.tinypic.com image 640x676]

Plonk. I hope I never read anything you post again.. ever.


Hail to the King, baby!
 
2013-01-16 12:33:35 PM  
So, the GOP seems to be posturing their followers towards civil war.

Or am I just being paranoid?
 
2013-01-16 12:33:44 PM  

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.


Pffftt! Whatever. Its not bad when their guy does it stupid.
 
2013-01-16 12:34:13 PM  

meat0918: So, the GOP seems to be posturing their followers towards civil war.

Or am I just being paranoid?


No, you're just a bit off with the terminology.
 
2013-01-16 12:34:54 PM  

Infernalist: 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 ca ...


Yikes! The North better make provisions for a well-regulated militia.
 
2013-01-16 12:36:06 PM  

NateGrey: 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.


I don't believe signing statements are the same as executive orders. For an explanation of GWB's 291 executive orders see Link
 
2013-01-16 12:37:20 PM  

zipdog: and lack of representation in parliament is not mentioned once.


Come again?

"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."
 
2013-01-16 12:37:26 PM  

meat0918: So, the GOP seems to be posturing their followers towards civil war.

Or am I just being paranoid?


I think it's more like the GOP is chasing a certain voting bloc who are, theoretically, civil war "enthusiasts."

v007o.popscreen.com
 
2013-01-16 12:37:32 PM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: What's scary is some people in here sound like they would be OK with the King idea.

Anyway, here is the list of executive orders Obama is tossing out there.

All in all, not too much to get worked up over.


1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
11. Nominate an ATF director.
12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.
13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.


2 scares the the shiat out of me, honestly. All that will do is further stigmatize mental health issues, and cause people to NOT seek treatment.

none of this addresses any of the underlying issues which cause violent crime in this country.
 
2013-01-16 12:39:16 PM  
I'm against knee jerk hyperbole. I think that's what we have the Internet for.
 
2013-01-16 12:39:17 PM  
The fact that we're talking about this even in a satirical is at least a little eye brow raising

I mean this is probably how it starts:

Ha ole Obama is at it with the executive orders again.

Then

Kind of scary how much he can accomplish with executive order

Then

Oh shiat he just executive ordered the elimination of term limits and congress. Hail King Obama

/I say this tounge in cheek but historically hasn't it kind of happened like this?
 
2013-01-16 12:39:18 PM  

milowent: 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.


Your not a sheeple though! Your an independant thinker arent you? Whos an independent thinker? You are! Thats right!

Make sure you wait to reply, dont want to say anything the rest of fark doesnt agree with. You free thinker you.
 
2013-01-16 12:39:26 PM  

SuperT: 2 scares the the shiat out of me, honestly. All that will do is further stigmatize mental health issues, and cause people to NOT seek treatment.


Because if they are paranoid schizophrenic they won't be able to get a gun?
 
2013-01-16 12:39:41 PM  

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.


pixel.nymag.com
 
2013-01-16 12:40:07 PM  

GrizzlyPouch: The fact that we're talking about this even in a satirical is at least a little eye brow raising

I mean this is probably how it starts:

Ha ole Obama is at it with the executive orders again.

Then

Kind of scary how much he can accomplish with executive order

Then

Oh shiat he just executive ordered the elimination of term limits and congress. Hail King Obama

/I say this tounge in cheek but historically hasn't it kind of happened like this?


No. What you're doing is called the "slippery slope" argument, and it's a logical fallacy.
 
2013-01-16 12:40:15 PM  

Civil war? Nah. More like class war. It's the only way they're gonna get the loot out of town with an excuse like "America no longer has a safe business climate." Less conspiracy, more business plan. Essentially...

t1.gstatic.com

"Life, which you so nobly serve, comes from destruction, disorder and chaos.
Now take this empty glass. Here it is: peaceful, serene, boring. But if it is destroyed "
 
2013-01-16 12:40:45 PM  
I know this is Fark, and the threads are supposed to full of snark, but it's truly frightening that most of you here are able to vote.
 
2013-01-16 12:40:46 PM  

Phinn: I'll listen to Obama when he agrees to close the Fast & Furious loophole.


Is that the one that allows Vin Diesel to just make a cameo, but still be listed in the film credits?
 
2013-01-16 12:41:07 PM  

GibbyTheMole: Besides... as any idjit can tell you, we need machine guns to hunt squirrels and rabbits. Bigger game like deer, require RPGs.



It's comin' right for us!


You are a moron. Enjoy your cartoons!
 
2013-01-16 12:41:37 PM  

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.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal except for the King.
 
2013-01-16 12:42:19 PM  

bunner: Civil war? Nah. More like class war. It's the only way they're gonna get the loot out of town with an excuse like "America no longer has a safe business climate." Less conspiracy, more business plan. Essentially...

[t1.gstatic.com image 344x147]

"Life, which you so nobly serve, comes from destruction, disorder and chaos.
Now take this empty glass. Here it is: peaceful, serene, boring. But if it is destroyed "


That's the debt ceiling fiasco, not the gun issues.
 
2013-01-16 12:42:27 PM  
Stupid piece of shiat never heard of an executive order?

"George W. Bush (R) (2001-2009) had a total of 291 Executive Orders throughout his 8 years in office. President George W. Bush started with EO 13198 and ended with EO 13488. "

I'm sure Paul was perfectly fine with each and every one of these.

Dumbass.
 
2013-01-16 12:42:40 PM  

someonelse: BMFPitt: someonelse: You're the one who is sure the as-yet-nonexistent executive orders will be unconstitutional. Just because.

Really? That's an interesting delusion.

Did you not refer to President Obama making an "unconstitutional power grab"? You based this assessment on ...


Biden talking out his ass about using an executive order which would either have to be unconstitutional or wildly disappointing to those who want increased restrictions on guns and/or clips.
 
2013-01-16 12:43:47 PM  

Sobrrr: I know this is Fark, and the threads are supposed to full of snark, but it's truly frightening that most of you here are able to vote.


Well look at it this way, it's also full of people who only log on to pronounce other users to be complete twats and then fade off into their cocoon of allegedly unimpeachable superiority. So there's that.
 
2013-01-16 12:44:02 PM  

Albert911emt: 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.


No. POLITICIAN'S, regardless of party affiliation, "grasp of history" is pretty flimsy at best when they are trying to sell their bill of goods to the people.
 
2013-01-16 12:44:08 PM  

HAHAHAHA, OBAMA WON THE ELECTION, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHA, AND THERE'S NOTHING YOU NEOCONS CAN DO ABOUT IT , HAHAHAHAHA
FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS!
LOLOLOLOL ROFLMAO HAHAHAHAHA
 
2013-01-16 12:44:28 PM  

DeathCipris: 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 ca ...


I guess if you're the type that doesn't just say "let's leave everything where it is" you might have some heavy opposition from the now-conveniently-anti-imperialist European powers that run everything. The UN would definitely have a problem with you moving things around once these regions achieved recognized statehood.
 
2013-01-16 12:44:38 PM  

seadoo2006: Gun rights? Again, he hasn't signed or made ONE gun law since being elected 4 years ago. An Executive Order would be his first weigh-in on the issue.


Not entirely true.

The Credit CARD Act of 2009 had an amendment that expanded gun rights.
" Tom Coburn (R-Okla) added an unrelated rider to the bill to prevent the Secretary of the Interior from enforcing any regulation that would prohibit an individual from possessing a firearm in any unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System." Link
 
2013-01-16 12:44:54 PM  

reign424: Not like Obama passed the ..."Patriot" Act


Yes he did.
 
2013-01-16 12:45:38 PM  

meat0918: bunner: Civil war? Nah. More like class war. It's the only way they're gonna get the loot out of town with an excuse like "America no longer has a safe business climate." Less conspiracy, more business plan. Essentially...

[t1.gstatic.com image 344x147]

"Life, which you so nobly serve, comes from destruction, disorder and chaos.
Now take this empty glass. Here it is: peaceful, serene, boring. But if it is destroyed "

That's the debt ceiling fiasco, not the gun issues.


Perhaps, but when the other shoe finally drops, wouldn't it be nice to have a massively armed populace all trained to blame each other for the *thunk* sound it makes when it hits the floor? Logistics, man.
 
2013-01-16 12:45:43 PM  
OFF WITH HIS HEAD!
 
2013-01-16 12:47:02 PM  

clane: You gitty Liberals should head


I'll give you 8/10 for all the responses you got. Maybe another 0.5 for capitalizing liberals.
 
2013-01-16 12:47:10 PM  

seadoo2006: shortymac: God this is ridiculous. This reminded me of a derptasic FB posting by someone I went to High School with when Obama was elected:

"I will NOT call him president. HE IS NOT MY PRESIDENT. He wasn't my president before this election, he will not be my president this election and he will not be my ex-president. He will not be my king, my ruler.....NOTHING!!!"

Another posting summarized:
"But, in the mean time...on a very good note and a very happy note....HE CAN NOT BE ELECTED FOR A THIRD TERM!!!!! We can overcome the obstacles in the way, because we have a greater power on our side and it is not "the ruler obama", it is God!!!! So, lets all pray, have faith and look forward to no more Obama in four years. KARMA IS A biatch! :) #TeamRomney2016"

Granted I was a kid when Clinton was elected, but I don't remember all these "monarchy" rhetoric while he was in office. For both him and Bush it was more "dumb redneck" heckling.

Is this hidden racism or more the internet and FB has given every angry idiot a soapbox? Thoughts?

That's the only logical conclusion I can come up with based on the fact that, objectively, Obama is a left-leaning, pro-business, centrist, who up until about a month ago, couldn't give two shiats about guns. The man is half-black and that just pisses people off with righteous indignation.


Oh Baloney.

Barack Obama was elected in part because he said he would follow the rule of law. He has gone after more whistle blowers than every president combined. He has assassinated american citizens without due process of law. He has refused to allow the public to even read the secret interpretations of the patriot act that his admin is working under. He has steadfastly continued to argue Bush administration court arguments of executive secrecy shielding torturers and other law breakers from any accountability.

To say the only reason that anyone has an issue with him is because he is black is just stupid. I voted for the guy the first time because he expressly said he was going to claw this stuff back. He has legitimized all the Bush era abuses and moved the goal posts far beyond anything they ever would of dreamed about.
 
2013-01-16 12:47:18 PM  
I really miss chupacabras. Has anyone seen one lately?
 
2013-01-16 12:48:03 PM  

Petit_Merdeux: clane: You gitty Liberals should head

I'll give you 8/10 for all the responses you got. Maybe another 0.5 for capitalizing liberals.


I'll give him a 2/10 overall for not typing "libtard".
 
2013-01-16 12:48:37 PM  

CheekyMonkey:

In reality, the queen could, in fact, stop waving, flip you off, and sic her Corgis on you. Beyond that, not much.


25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-01-16 12:49:29 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: 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.


Nice cliche! Youll be talking about how much smarter you are than everyone you know all day, bring home some panera, have sex with your babies momma while she wishes you were a real man, lose some of what you collected at "work" in the form of anal seepage, then do it all again tomorrow?
 
2013-01-16 12:49:36 PM  

jmr61: Stupid piece of shiat never heard of an executive order?

"George W. Bush (R) (2001-2009) had a total of 291 Executive Orders throughout his 8 years in office. President George W. Bush started with EO 13198 and ended with EO 13488. "

I'm sure Paul was perfectly fine with each and every one of these.

Dumbass.


Dubya may have been a mentally challenged war criminal who doomed the nation's economy for decades after his unearned presidency ("may have been..." HA! I'm such a kidder!), but at least he wasn't so -- you know -- "socialist."
 
2013-01-16 12:50:23 PM  
"King" is the buzzword being circulated lately. This is very clearly designed to stir up the revolutionary argle bargle.

These people are insane.
 
2013-01-16 12:50:31 PM  

boobsrgood: I really miss chupacabras. Has anyone seen one lately?


I saw Richard Greer with one on a leash.
He's moving on up.
 
2013-01-16 12:51:07 PM  

ALC59: Obama is the biggest piece of shiat this country has ever seen
Biden has his nose so far up Obamas ass that hes starting to smell like him
now he's on tv with children on stage with him, what an ass, and a coward, where are his children, oh that's right, their in school with armed guards protecting them, your kids don't deserve that kind of protection, their not worthy
how many semiautomatic guns are around him with more than 7 rounds, yet again he's worthy, you're not



Well, bye.
 
2013-01-16 12:51:13 PM  

BMFPitt: 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.


Are you talking about Rand Paul here? Rand has his faults, but this is not one of them.
 
2013-01-16 12:52:49 PM  

lordjupiter: "King" is the buzzword being circulated lately. This is very clearly designed to stir up the revolutionary argle bargle.

These people are insane.


It's amazing how people never seem to recognize that these sorts of things are coordinated by a handful of people at the top. The synchronized releases and talks and speeches all referring to 'king' and 'monarchy'...Do they all think that these disparate and different groups and peoples all came up with the same idea on the same day?
 
2013-01-16 12:53:18 PM  

jigger: reign424: Not like Obama passed the ..."Patriot" Act

Yes he did.


and had he not, all the "conservatives" would be wailing about how he has weakened our most effective tools against terrorism.
 
2013-01-16 12:53:21 PM  
Calling him "rex" and waiting for the fallout eh? Bold strategy. Now what could we look back to in history to compare. Something about ancient Rome, hmm...
 
2013-01-16 12:53:26 PM  
The trolling tags getting greenlit are getting really old. Cut that shiat out already. Between that and the crap sponsored articles, this place is getting worse and worse.
 
2013-01-16 12:54:01 PM  

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


want to hear a secret?
you don;t need to be a genuis to be a doctor. All you need is copius amount of memorization and cram session. Of course the amount of family connections and family wealth do supplement lack of natural smarts and abilities

engineers are by far much smarter (IQ wise) than doctors.

There is a saying where I work.

What do you call the dumbass who graduated the last of his class in medical school after his 3rd try?

.
.
.
.
.
Doctor
 
2013-01-16 12:55:01 PM  

Mutiny32: The trolling tags getting greenlit are getting really old. Cut that shiat out already. Between that and the crap sponsored articles, this place is getting worse and worse.


If you're looking for honest debate, you're better off looking elsewhere other than Fark.

I treat this place as it deserves to be treated: A place to amuse myself by mocking retarded conservatives and watching the trolls stink up the joint.
 
2013-01-16 12:56:38 PM  

Infernalist: I treat this place as it deserves to be treated: A place to amuse myself by mocking retarded conservatives and watching the trolls stink up the joint.


The ghetto is how you live, not where you live.
 
2013-01-16 12:56:49 PM  

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.


His Majesty, George the Third, by the Grace of God, King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, and so forth says that the American colonies, by virtue of being British territories did in fact have legitimate claim to be king in a large portion of North America.

Further, lack of representation in Parliament was only one of the many grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence.

Obama is no George III. However, he is one arrogant son of a biatch.
 
2013-01-16 12:58:12 PM  

EyeballKid: Dubya may have been a mentally challenged war criminal who doomed the nation's economy for decades after his unearned presidency ("may have been..." HA! I'm such a kidder!), but at least he wasn't so -- you know -- "socialist."


No, he was also a socialist (Medicare Part D, TARP, etc.).

And therefore scum.
 
2013-01-16 12:58:15 PM  

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.


What executive order has Obama issued that circumvents the Constitution?
 
2013-01-16 12:59:29 PM  
So this is what happens when politics spills out onto the main page.. Wow.
 
2013-01-16 12:59:30 PM  

hdhale: Obama is no George III. However, he is one arrogant son of a biatch.


How's that, then?
 
2013-01-16 12:59:31 PM  

jigger: BMFPitt: 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.

Are you talking about Rand Paul here? Rand has his faults, but this is not one of them.


Better than most, but still too much for me.

But at least I give him credit for being in favor of civil liberties.
 
2013-01-16 12:59:35 PM  

Infernalist: It's amazing how people never seem to recognize that these sorts of things are coordinated by a handful of people at the top.


Not too surprising. It's not like you watch footage of a Pit-Tea Party protest and find yourself thinking, "Was nothing accomplished at the universities and hospitals today, what with all our local brilliant minds apparently elsewhere?"
 
2013-01-16 01:00:39 PM  

Infernalist: Mutiny32: The trolling tags getting greenlit are getting really old. Cut that shiat out already. Between that and the crap sponsored articles, this place is getting worse and worse.

If you're looking for honest debate, you're better off looking elsewhere other than Fark.

I treat this place as it deserves to be treated: A place to amuse myself by mocking retarded conservatives and watching the trolls stink up the joint.


I view it that way too. I am simply pointing out that maybe some variety with tags on politically charged stories would be better. Using trolling tags is fun, but not when it's used virtually all of the time. It's boring.
 
2013-01-16 01:01:18 PM  

Infernalist: lordjupiter: "King" is the buzzword being circulated lately. This is very clearly designed to stir up the revolutionary argle bargle.

These people are insane.

It's amazing how people never seem to recognize that these sorts of things are coordinated by a handful of people at the top. The synchronized releases and talks and speeches all referring to 'king' and 'monarchy'...Do they all think that these disparate and different groups and peoples all came up with the same idea on the same day?


It always happens this way. Suddenly, every derper you know is using the same words, talking about the same issue that nobody had even thought about for X years. Out of the blue, suddenly there's fake outrage over some standard practice that had been going on for years, but is suddenly some new, dictatorial initiative by King Blackie McGungrabber.

And then they have the balls to say they don't get it from right wing media sources. Well, if they don't get it directly (which they DO, but won't admit) then they get it from friends who do (but also won't admit it).

DAILY OUTRAGE!
DON'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO, LIBTARDZ!
HEY RUSH, TELL ME WHAT TO DO!
 
2013-01-16 01:01:29 PM  

kindms: Ignored "kindms". If you want to completely hide ignored user comments, change the "Show header of ignored comments" option in your user profile.


welcome to the list! Assassinated Americans indeed!!!111!!!


what color IS the sky there?
 
2013-01-16 01:02:44 PM  

cleek: jigger: reign424: Not like Obama passed the ..."Patriot" Act

Yes he did.

and had he not, all the "conservatives" would be wailing about how he has weakened our most effective tools against terrorism.


So? What, you actually think Obama is against the Patriot Act? I guess it's hard to tell since he only voted for its reauthorization when he was a Senator and then signed its reauthorization when he was President.
 
2013-01-16 01:03:08 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?


Even if left to congress, I can't imagine them doing anything. I mean, look what the House did with several easy bills. They sit on them and refuse to vote, or simply work against the President cause...well fark everyone else but our party. I don't trust them with anything at this point, it's all just fighting and rhetoric. And I used to be Republican.
 
2013-01-16 01:03:19 PM  

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.


Quit stereotyping, you wine sipping, homo loving half man. Your cowardice shames not only your family who you seem intent to leave to dangers you wont be able to protect them from, but you shame your neighbors and countrymen.
 
2013-01-16 01:04:07 PM  

d23: 900RR: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: What's scary is some people in here sound like they would be OK with the King idea.

He's already their king! Stupid people love him. The media already said he is "Sort of a God".

[i47.tinypic.com image 640x676]

Plonk. I hope I never read anything you post again.. ever.


Can you plonk me, too? I don't want you to read my stuff.
 
2013-01-16 01:04:36 PM  

Day_Old_Dutchie: 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.


"President" Basilisk Chumpstain 0FUK0's

Kenyan communist arugula eating Presidential usurping paperclip using birth certificate forging tax loving dijon mustard spreading gun-running college transcript cheating cigarette smoking baby killing 200 million dollar a day vacationing job regulating gun taking teleprompter reading czar appointing christmas tree taxing death panel instating wealth redistributing terrorist pal'ing inexperienced foriegn leader worshipping vacation-taking deficit spending incandescent lightbulb banning jalapeno ordering secret muslim Nazi Americans won't do.


Communist Nazi Muslim Socialist Peacenik Elitist Dhimmicrat Man-Child Egghead Celebrity Jihadist Appeaser Usurper Dictator Manchurian-Candidate Community-Organizer Cult-Leader Empty-Suit Tyrant Bureaucrat Hypocrite Non-Citizen America-Hater Arugula-Muncher Marxist Terrorist Liberal Leftist Stalinist Welfare-Statist Narcissist Plagiarist Pottymouth Murderer Islamofascist Sleeper-Cell Ghetto-Trash Blame-America-Firster Fearmonger Racist Atheist Kenyan Keynesian Militant Flag-Burner Child-Molester Drug-Lord Gun-Grabber Gun-Runner Lightbulb-Outlawer 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 Subhuman Illegal-Alien Reptoid Silver-Spoon Monarchist Teleprompter-Addict Chain-Smoker Hip-Hop-Barbecuer Stutterer Non-Tipper Binder-Clipper Pizza-Cheese-Eater Face-Blocker Havel-Snubber Malware-Propagator Greenie-Weenie State-Miscounter Mom-Jeans-Wearer Grey-Poupon-Supremacist Long-Legged Mackdaddy currently defiling the White House.
Em-barr-ASS-ment HUSSEIN Fartburglar Antichrist
 
2013-01-16 01:04:43 PM  

EyeballKid: "Was nothing accomplished at the universities and hospitals today, what with all our local brilliant minds apparently elsewhere?"


If it's all about money, then the people who print it own your land, your food, your work and your history. They also own the talent that makes the universities and hospitals offer quality. So far, this hasn't worked out. Mayer Amschel Rothschild figured this out eons before our grandfathers were born.
 
2013-01-16 01:05:05 PM  

Infernalist: Mutiny32: The trolling tags getting greenlit are getting really old. Cut that shiat out already. Between that and the crap sponsored articles, this place is getting worse and worse.

If you're looking for honest debate, you're better off looking elsewhere other than Fark.

I treat this place as it deserves to be treated: A place to amuse myself by mocking retarded conservatives and watching the trolls stink up the joint.


I began coming here in 2000 or 2001, lurked for a while (iirc) and registered in December of 2001 when I couldn't hold my tongue anymore because of the political derp.

It has ALWAYS been like this. All political discussions take the same course and tone. Anyone looking to hammer out legislation is looking in the wrong place.
 
2013-01-16 01:05:05 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?


There are 20 dead 7 year old in Newtown that would like to have a word with you. If they were like, I don't know - vertical?
 
2013-01-16 01:07:41 PM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: What's scary is some people in here sound like they would be OK with the King idea.

Anyway, here is the list of executive orders Obama is tossing out there.

All in all, not too much to get worked up over.


1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
11. Nominate an ATF director.
12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.
13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector ...


He is truly and unequivocally History's Greatest Monster.
 
2013-01-16 01:08:02 PM  

caramba421: 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.

[pixel.nymag.com image 560x740]



"Low information" is just a polite way of saying "idiot".

These people are idiots.
 
2013-01-16 01:08:12 PM  
You know who else liked to use executive orders?
 
2013-01-16 01:08:15 PM  
If you look closely at the fine print you'll see these executive orders only apply to "habitants of the States under jurisdiction of this (executive) office". Since Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Kentucky are all Commonwealths and not "states" they are exempt from these orders, which is not surprising given the amount of money donated to Obama's inauguration party from these very areas.
 
2013-01-16 01:08:17 PM  

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


So also is whining "that HE did something that EVERY other president in office has done pretty much since we've HAD presidents"

For example, Lance Armstrong doped, as does MOST of the bike crowd, so its horrible for him to admit it?

Plus its pretty well accepted that Paul IS an idiot.
 
2013-01-16 01:08:20 PM  

Farkomatic: There are 20 dead 7 year old in Newtown that would like to have a word with you. If they were like, I don't know - vertical?


If Obama could have issued a constitutional Executive Order at any time to prevent the Newtown massacre, then why didn't he? If he has the unilateral authority to issue it at any time, and it would save lives, then why did he wait until AFTER 20 kids had died?

You're saying that Obama's delay killed at least 20 kids.
 
2013-01-16 01:08:31 PM  

cryinoutloud: 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 image 509x346]


i'd vote for that guy
 
2013-01-16 01:09:15 PM  
I'm against having a king," he said Tuesday in an interview in Jerusalem with the Christian Broadcasting Network. "I think having a monarch is what we fought the American Revolution over and someone who wants to bypass the Constitution, bypass Congress - that's someone who wants to act like a king or a monarch."

what a whiny cry baby.  this is the future of the GOP?  whiny girly men who complain endlessly when they should be finding a way to fix a difficult and complex problem...?
 
2013-01-16 01:09:48 PM  
I've decided that in politics, if you have nothing to say, you bash the other person personally.
 
2013-01-16 01:09:49 PM  
He's an idiot. We'd have a King, except George Washington turned the offer down.
 
2013-01-16 01:09:50 PM  

Oldiron_79: You know who else liked to use executive orders?


George Bush...?
 
2013-01-16 01:10:10 PM  

Phinn: You're saying that Obama's delay killed at least 20 kids.


No, some sh*tstain who took advantage of the fact that you can cobble together an arsenal on a shoestring did that.
 
2013-01-16 01:10:14 PM  

jmr61: Stupid piece of shiat never heard of an executive order?

"George W. Bush (R) (2001-2009) had a total of 291 Executive Orders throughout his 8 years in office. President George W. Bush started with EO 13198 and ended with EO 13488. "

I'm sure Paul was perfectly fine with each and every one of these.

Dumbass.


Why are you sure? Because you fail to research things that may not end up supporting your ideology and pre-conceived notions because you're a partisan hack? Or is it some other reason?
 
2013-01-16 01:10:27 PM  

Farkomatic: 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?

There are 20 dead 7 year old in Newtown that would like to have a word with you. If they were like, I don't know - vertical?


And there are countless aborted fetuses that would like to have a word with you. If they were like, I don't know, allowed to be born.

This is a stupid game. Can we discuss this like adults?
 
2013-01-16 01:10:42 PM  

Weaver95: I'm against having a king," he said Tuesday in an interview in Jerusalem with the Christian Broadcasting Network. "I think having a monarch is what we fought the American Revolution over and someone who wants to bypass the Constitution, bypass Congress - that's someone who wants to act like a king or a monarch."

what a whiny cry baby.  this is the future of the GOP?  whiny girly men who complain endlessly when they should be finding a way to fix a difficult and complex problem...?


Yes. Although to be fair, that's what his constituents want.
 
2013-01-16 01:10:58 PM  
This drives me crazy, ok, I am a Libertarian who votes GOP, and YES for the millionth time if George Bush (H.W. and W.) did that I would be mad too. I was indeed angry over many of George Bush's decisions. The No Child Left Behind Act (I am was teaching at the time) especially got on my nerves. Obama and George Bush are not the supreme leaders. I don't need to bow down to any of them.

Ok? So stop the high school argument of "but it would be ok if Bush did it nah nah nah nah!"
 
2013-01-16 01:11:31 PM  

bunner: hdhale: Obama is no George III. However, he is one arrogant son of a biatch.

How's that, then?


Didn't you see that picture where he has his chin up?

OOOOOOHHHH THE ARROGANCE!!1!
 
2013-01-16 01:11:42 PM  
There are times when I come here and read through the posts and wonder if people really believe what they are posting, because it that is the case I weep for the human race. My favorite is when they say something totally off the wall and when they are questioned on it the response is some insult. I haven't done any calculations, but it feels as though the liberals are guilty of this move often than the conservatives, but that could just be as result of more of them being on here.

There were many grievances that led up to the revolution and some of those were a result of policies implemented by Parliament under the encouragement of King George III. So the statement about a Monarch is correct if not limited and does apply to the current situation where representation does not include many of the people of this nation.
 
2013-01-16 01:12:16 PM  

ghare: Weaver95: I'm against having a king," he said Tuesday in an interview in Jerusalem with the Christian Broadcasting Network. "I think having a monarch is what we fought the American Revolution over and someone who wants to bypass the Constitution, bypass Congress - that's someone who wants to act like a king or a monarch."

what a whiny cry baby.  this is the future of the GOP?  whiny girly men who complain endlessly when they should be finding a way to fix a difficult and complex problem...?

Yes. Although to be fair, that's what his constituents want.


you should hear limbaugh today - he's having a mental breakdown. My gods, I thought he was actually going to break down and CRY on air!
 
2013-01-16 01:12:59 PM  

Cythraul: 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.


I bought A People's History before a deployment, looking for something to whet my appetite for history. They weren't kidding when they named it "People's History". It's like the farking People's Republic of China, what's said in that shiat-tome. But some people want a slanted demagogued out version of information. I want the truth.

/Threw the book out the bus window, should've crapped on it and set it on fire first
 
2013-01-16 01:13:06 PM  
Rand Paul would never make it through the primaries. He is too much of a purist. Libertarians are still weak in the GOP but I hope they take it over. Really sick of the GOP we have now.
 
2013-01-16 01:13:17 PM  

Pants full of macaroni!!: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: What's scary is some people in here sound like they would be OK with the King idea.

Anyway, here is the list of executive orders Obama is tossing out there.

All in all, not too much to get worked up over.


1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
11. Nominate an ATF director.
12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.
13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challeng ...


Yes, it's another instance of let the right whoop and holler and get people scared, and then do something really bland and reasonable and not at all what the right was screaming about and then people look at the right and say "WTF were you whooping and hollering about? He's not taking your guns you morons".

I expect some of my fellow Democrats to be a bit disappointed at what was proposed, since isn't a good chunk of it "Let Congress sort it out"?
 
2013-01-16 01:13:43 PM  

Cythraul: 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.


There were also the things republicans are terrified of mentioning today. The corporate powers dominating trade, being drafted for wars they didn't necessarily feel like fighting. The implication that where you're born determines whether you're a superior Englishman or an inferior Colonial.

Kind of all the things Rand Paul supports. Hell he's even for a monarch as long as it calls itself "Chief Executive Officer."
 
2013-01-16 01:14:19 PM  

tommyl66: If you look closely at the fine print you'll see these executive orders only apply to "habitants of the States under jurisdiction of this (executive) office". Since Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Kentucky are all Commonwealths and not "states" they are exempt from these orders, which is not surprising given the amount of money donated to Obama's inauguration party from these very areas.


9.5/10. Well done.
 
2013-01-16 01:14:36 PM  
I have dogs smarter than Rand Paul.
 
2013-01-16 01:14:57 PM  

kindms: seadoo2006: shortymac: God this is ridiculous. This reminded me of a derptasic FB posting by someone I went to High School with when Obama was elected:

"I will NOT call him president. HE IS NOT MY PRESIDENT. He wasn't my president before this election, he will not be my president this election and he will not be my ex-president. He will not be my king, my ruler.....NOTHING!!!"

Another posting summarized:
"But, in the mean time...on a very good note and a very happy note....HE CAN NOT BE ELECTED FOR A THIRD TERM!!!!! We can overcome the obstacles in the way, because we have a greater power on our side and it is not "the ruler obama", it is God!!!! So, lets all pray, have faith and look forward to no more Obama in four years. KARMA IS A biatch! :) #TeamRomney2016"

Granted I was a kid when Clinton was elected, but I don't remember all these "monarchy" rhetoric while he was in office. For both him and Bush it was more "dumb redneck" heckling.

Is this hidden racism or more the internet and FB has given every angry idiot a soapbox? Thoughts?

That's the only logical conclusion I can come up with based on the fact that, objectively, Obama is a left-leaning, pro-business, centrist, who up until about a month ago, couldn't give two shiats about guns. The man is half-black and that just pisses people off with righteous indignation.

Oh Baloney.

Barack Obama was elected in part because he said he would follow the rule of law. He has gone after more whistle blowers than every president combined. He has assassinated american citizens without due process of law. He has refused to allow the public to even read the secret interpretations of the patriot act that his admin is working under. He has steadfastly continued to argue Bush administration court arguments of executive secrecy shielding torturers and other law breakers from any accountability.

To say the only reason that anyone has an issue with him is because he is black is just stupid. I voted for the guy the first ti ...


cleek: jigger: reign424: Not like Obama passed the ..."Patriot" Act

Yes he did.

and had he not, all the "conservatives" would be wailing about how he has weakened our most effective tools against terrorism.


Good move, then!
 
2013-01-16 01:15:13 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: bunner: hdhale: Obama is no George III. However, he is one arrogant son of a biatch.

How's that, then?

Didn't you see that picture where he has his chin up?

OOOOOOHHHH THE ARROGANCE!!1!


Ah reckon if he had any manners and knew his place, he'd stare at his feet when addressed by respectable folk, then again, if'n he was one of the good ones, he wouldn't messin' with all this presidential tomfoolery.
 
2013-01-16 01:15:31 PM  

bunner: Phinn: You're saying that Obama's delay killed at least 20 kids.

No, some sh*tstain who took advantage of the fact that you can cobble together an arsenal on a shoestring did that.


Stop and think for 2 seconds.

Obama claims that:

1. he has the Constitutional authority to unilaterally issue these Executive Orders, and
2. they have the power to save lives, particularly mass shootings, and mass school shootings most of all.

He's been in office for 4 years. In that time, there have been a few mass shootings.

Obama's supporters (and you, and Farkomatic, etc.) are all openly admitting that Obama's failure to do all that he could, when he could, cost all those people their lives.

Obama is a dilatory kid-killer.
 
2013-01-16 01:17:00 PM  

Phinn: Stop and think for 2 seconds.


You first.
 
2013-01-16 01:19:17 PM  

Phinn: bunner: Phinn: You're saying that Obama's delay killed at least 20 kids.

No, some sh*tstain who took advantage of the fact that you can cobble together an arsenal on a shoestring did that.

Stop and think for 2 seconds.

Obama claims that:

1. he has the Constitutional authority to unilaterally issue these Executive Orders, and
2. they have the power to save lives, particularly mass shootings, and mass school shootings most of all.

He's been in office for 4 years. In that time, there have been a few mass shootings.

Obama's supporters (and you, and Farkomatic, etc.) are all openly admitting that Obama's failure to do all that he could, when he could, cost all those people their lives.

Obama is a dilatory kid-killer.


www.troll.me
 
2013-01-16 01:19:29 PM  

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?


Incompetent
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-01-16 01:19:37 PM  

Wangiss: d23: 900RR: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: What's scary is some people in here sound like they would be OK with the King idea.

He's already their king! Stupid people love him. The media already said he is "Sort of a God".

[i47.tinypic.com image 640x676]

Plonk. I hope I never read anything you post again.. ever.

Can you plonk me, too? I don't want you to read my stuff.


no
 
2013-01-16 01:20:54 PM  

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.


Which was only a small portion of what lack of representation implied. We fought a Revolution because we were being remotely governed and had developed a separate identity. If we had simply petitioned Parliment for representation as a condition for continuing as subjects, they probably would have said yes. But there was so much that was wrong with remotely managing the colonies as well as the distinct cultural and social aspects that made the colonists say "we don't need you, and we aren't you"
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-01-16 01:21:10 PM  

Dog Welder: 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?

Incompetent


So he's in the same class as the Truthers who simultaneously believe that Bush is an idiot and he masterminded the biggest conspiracy in history.
 
2013-01-16 01:21:18 PM  

Phinn: He's been in office for 4 years. In that time, there have been a few mass shootings.

Obama's supporters (and you, and Farkomatic, etc.) are all openly admitting that Obama's failure to do all that he could, when he could, cost all those people their lives


I cannot quie connect your dots but I did mange to torch the strawman you were wheeling up to my lawn.

: |
 
2013-01-16 01:23:09 PM  

Phinn: Stop and think for 2 seconds.


Should we study it out?
 
2013-01-16 01:23:25 PM  

HellRaisingHoosier: I've decided that in politics, if you have nothing to say, you bash the other person personally.


You didn't decide that. It's been a fact of politics since politics began.

/and not even a Libfact™
 
2013-01-16 01:24:17 PM  
Well, technically, as the single head of state, the President of the United States is a monarch.
 
2013-01-16 01:24:36 PM  

ALC59: Obama is the biggest piece of shiat this country has ever seen
Biden has his nose so far up Obamas ass that hes starting to smell like him
now he's on tv with children on stage with him, what an ass, and a coward, where are his children, oh that's right, their in school with armed guards protecting them, your kids don't deserve that kind of protection, their not worthy
how many semiautomatic guns are around him with more than 7 rounds, yet again he's worthy, you're not


Now wipe the foam and spittle off your chin.

Or is he a middle-of-the-road, mild-mannered compromiser trying to benefit the majority of Americans while being denied every chance to do anything by a monolithic minority with a rubber stamp that says "no"?
I didn't love W, but I only hoped the jihadis were more scared than I.
 
2013-01-16 01:25:20 PM  

fsbilly: Well, technically, as the single head of state, the President of the United States is a monarch.


Technically, not even technically.
 
2013-01-16 01:25:28 PM  
Why no dumbass tag?
 
2013-01-16 01:26:12 PM  

Darke: 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?

Even if left to congress, I can't imagine them doing anything. I mean, look what the House did with several easy bills. They sit on them and refuse to vote, or simply work against the President cause...well fark everyone else but our party. I don't trust them with anything at this point, it's all just fighting and rhetoric. And I used to be Republican.


It doesn't make it somehow o.k. that B.O. does the end run around Congress. Like Obamacare being procedurally Rahmed through - dissenting voices be damned! I agree that most is just fighting and rhetoric though, petty and trading favors without using reason. Sorry though, but that comes more from the left.
 
2013-01-16 01:27:06 PM  
We do NOT need a "president" stepping over the other two branches of government to enact laws, when it is convenient for himself.

If you think that is a good idea then go live in Russia, or Cuba... Or even Venezuela.
 
2013-01-16 01:27:58 PM  

Weaver95: Oldiron_79: You know who else liked to use executive orders?

George Bush...?


Yes, George Hitler Bush.

/Whose side am I even on?!
 
2013-01-16 01:28:38 PM  
too bad there isn't a jackass tag
 
2013-01-16 01:28:50 PM  
All health care programs that involve private insurance companies raking in countless billions, paying as close to f*ck all as possible, and paying it to corporate hospitals that charge 7000% over cost for medical care, are bad health care programs. Period.
 
2013-01-16 01:29:28 PM  
1/16/13 - Poe's Law Celebration Day
 
2013-01-16 01:31:30 PM  

Peter von Nostrand: We get it. If you can't win on real issues, just start making shiat up


This.

They sure are sore losers. And Paul is an A1 nutjob.
 
2013-01-16 01:32:48 PM  

SpectroBoy: They sure are sore losers. And Paul is an A1 nutjob.


You need a lot of serious distractions if you want to put your dick in the dog unnoticed.
 
2013-01-16 01:33:32 PM  
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-16 01:33:37 PM  

d23: Dog Welder: 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?

Incompetent

So he's in the same class as the Truthers who simultaneously believe that Bush is an idiot and he masterminded the biggest conspiracy in history.


Yes. And this is one of the things that makes partisan bickering the most entertaining reality show for me.
 
2013-01-16 01:34:53 PM  

Billy Bathsalt: ALC59: Obama is the biggest piece of shiat this country has ever seen
Biden has his nose so far up Obamas ass that hes starting to smell like him
now he's on tv with children on stage with him, what an ass, and a coward, where are his children, oh that's right, their in school with armed guards protecting them, your kids don't deserve that kind of protection, their not worthy
how many semiautomatic guns are around him with more than 7 rounds, yet again he's worthy, you're not

Now wipe the foam and spittle off your chin.

Or is he a middle-of-the-road, mild-mannered compromiser trying to benefit the majority of Americans while being denied every chance to do anything by a monolithic minority with a rubber stamp that says "no"?
I didn't love W, but I only hoped the jihadis were more scared than I.


You like that "no" stamp when it's in your hands. Let's keep the "no" stamp alive, okay?
 
2013-01-16 01:35:03 PM  

d23: Dog Welder: 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?

Incompetent

So he's in the same class as the Truthers who simultaneously believe that Bush is an idiot and he masterminded the biggest conspiracy in history.


Where were you guys on page 9 of this thread? The list grew exponentially.
 
2013-01-16 01:35:16 PM  

bunner: Phinn: He's been in office for 4 years. In that time, there have been a few mass shootings.

Obama's supporters (and you, and Farkomatic, etc.) are all openly admitting that Obama's failure to do all that he could, when he could, cost all those people their lives

I cannot quie connect your dots but I did mange to torch the strawman you were wheeling up to my lawn.

: |


It's simple.

Obama claims (today) that he can issue these life-saving decrees, unilaterally, and with full Constitutional authority.

He is also claiming that these Executive Orders are going to be effective at their (stated) goal -- preventing the type of gun crime that has been on the news lately, and which school children write him letters about.

If both of these propositions are true, then Obama could have issued these very same Executive Orders four years ago.

Also, issuing them four years ago would have prevented the mass shooting deaths that occurred, on account of his Executive Orders being so wisely drafted and effective, and all.

So, by issuing these life-saving Executive Orders now, four years into his time in office, he is necessarily admitting that his four years of delay has cost innocent people their lives.

The only other possible conclusions are that one or both of his premises are false: Either (1) Obama did (and does) not have the Constitutional authority to unilaterally issue these Executive Orders, or (2) they would have been (and are) wholly ineffective at achieving their (stated) goal of preventing gun crime.

He's either a dilatory kid-killer, a Constitutional authority-usurper, or ineffectual.

Pick one.
 
2013-01-16 01:37:32 PM  

bunner: Amos Quito: The Fed is doing exactly what it was designed to do.

By its owners.

Shh. If people start noticing that this country is being bought out from under them with a load of bad IOUs shot out of a confetti cannon, they might get all obstreperous.



Bought?

Nice word choice.

I can tell that you have a kind and gentle nature.
 
2013-01-16 01:38:38 PM  
You know Fox News ratings were slipping a little recently due to buzzword fatigue. They used socialist et al. so many times the words stopped having actual meaning, so they go to Rand Paul and ask him to expand the buzzword lexicon.

"What haven't we called him yet that will both enflame our more stalwart viewers and capture the essence of old style constitutionalism without stepping on religion? We need a throwback to Revolutionary times... Rand, could you call Obama a king? I think monarchy will really help boost ratings. Plus, adding a crown is the easiest photoshop in the world to accomplish, so we should get a lot of play with social media."
 
2013-01-16 01:38:38 PM  
i208.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-16 01:39:21 PM  

reillan: "I'm against having a king," he said Tuesday in an interview in Jerusalem with the Christian Broadcasting Network.

Uhm...


Heh.
 
2013-01-16 01:40:43 PM  
I'm certain the GOP will put a Bush or Reagan up for election in 2016 while still complaining of Obama's dynastic ambitions.

/Jeb or Ron Jr.
 
2013-01-16 01:41:26 PM  

ninotchka: This drives me crazy, ok, I am a Libertarian who votes GOP, and YES for the millionth time if George Bush (H.W. and W.) did that I would be mad too. I was indeed angry over many of George Bush's decisions. The No Child Left Behind Act (I am was teaching at the time) especially got on my nerves. Obama and George Bush are not the supreme leaders. I don't need to bow down to any of them.

Ok? So stop the high school argument of "but it would be ok if Bush did it nah nah nah nah!"


lol
 
2013-01-16 01:42:34 PM  
Lemme ask y'all something.

When whatever flavor of outrage stirring malarkey du jour gets barfed up into the MSM, does anything actually happen? Do you stop moving your lawn? Do your bills go away? Do you stop sweating the mortgage or car payments? Does a job you've been trying to find in months of desperation suddenly fall out of the sky? Do jackbooted Nazis come and take your guns? Does the jackbooted Nazi at the airport stop feeling up your 8 year old daughter for "freedom"?

I bet nothing changes much at all. I bet we all just shake our fists on cue and keep chasing those elusive federally sanctioned IOUs around and pissing and moaning about 3.499 gas.

So maybe, what we need to do is try and step back and figure out why every single faction of governance, media, corporate business interests and every dweeb with a word processor or a key to a bathroom in a federal building desperately needs to keep selling this endless, overwrought sense of urgency and "oh teh noes!" about every stupid idea they can work into a block of text or a 30 second news clip. Cause just maybe, keeping us barking bullsh*t at each other is the point of this industry. And no industry survives unless it moves money around. Just planting seeds.
 
2013-01-16 01:43:54 PM  

Phinn: He's either a dilatory kid-killer, a Constitutional authority-usurper, or ineffectual.

Pick one.


You are a cheese sandwich, a cow or a bakery, Q.E.D. Pick one.
 
2013-01-16 01:44:08 PM  

bunner: Lemme ask y'all something.

When whatever flavor of outrage stirring malarkey du jour gets barfed up into the MSM, does anything actually happen? Do you stop moving your lawn? Do your bills go away? Do you stop sweating the mortgage or car payments? Does a job you've been trying to find in months of desperation suddenly fall out of the sky? Do jackbooted Nazis come and take your guns? Does the jackbooted Nazi at the airport stop feeling up your 8 year old daughter for "freedom"?

I bet nothing changes much at all. I bet we all just shake our fists on cue and keep chasing those elusive federally sanctioned IOUs around and pissing and moaning about 3.499 gas.

So maybe, what we need to do is try and step back and figure out why every single faction of governance, media, corporate business interests and every dweeb with a word processor or a key to a bathroom in a federal building desperately needs to keep selling this endless, overwrought sense of urgency and "oh teh noes!" about every stupid idea they can work into a block of text or a 30 second news clip. Cause just maybe, keeping us barking bullsh*t at each other is the point of this industry. And no industry survives unless it moves money around. Just planting seeds.


BULLSHIAT!
 
2013-01-16 01:44:45 PM  

tommyl66: bunner: Lemme ask y'all something.

When whatever flavor of outrage stirring malarkey du jour gets barfed up into the MSM, does anything actually happen? Do you stop moving your lawn? Do your bills go away? Do you stop sweating the mortgage or car payments? Does a job you've been trying to find in months of desperation suddenly fall out of the sky? Do jackbooted Nazis come and take your guns? Does the jackbooted Nazi at the airport stop feeling up your 8 year old daughter for "freedom"?

I bet nothing changes much at all. I bet we all just shake our fists on cue and keep chasing those elusive federally sanctioned IOUs around and pissing and moaning about 3.499 gas.

So maybe, what we need to do is try and step back and figure out why every single faction of governance, media, corporate business interests and every dweeb with a word processor or a key to a bathroom in a federal building desperately needs to keep selling this endless, overwrought sense of urgency and "oh teh noes!" about every stupid idea they can work into a block of text or a 30 second news clip. Cause just maybe, keeping us barking bullsh*t at each other is the point of this industry. And no industry survives unless it moves money around. Just planting seeds.

BULLSHIAT!


(Not really.)
 
2013-01-16 01:45:32 PM  
to be fair... Rand never made through the whole schoolhouse rock catalog in his quest for knowledge...

schoolhouse rock - no more kings
 
2013-01-16 01:47:45 PM  

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


This dude deserves the Florida tag just out of principle.
 
2013-01-16 01:48:18 PM  

Peter von Nostrand: We get it. If you can't win on real issues, just start making shiat up


Kinda like when he thought the board ophthalmologists test was unfair, so he decided to make up his own certification group. We've seen this all before, or maybe just heard about it, if he's your eye doctor.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/14/rand-paul-not-board-certi_n_ 6 11018.html
 
2013-01-16 01:49:09 PM  

bunner: All health care programs that involve private insurance companies raking in countless billions, paying as close to f*ck all as possible, and paying it to corporate hospitals that charge 7000% over cost for medical care, are bad health care programs. Period.


Wouldn't it be nice if you could buy a good one--one perhaps from a different state that rates among the best in the country? Too bad: illegal.
 
2013-01-16 01:50:34 PM  
Meh - the real reason we fought the American Revolution was actually that some rich people wanted to be richer while other rich people felt they were entitled to more money. Rich colonialists wanted more money to go to them and not the King. So they got lots of poor folk worked up. In fact, the majority of people living in the colonies were loyal to England at the time anyway.

The whole Tea Party thing, was in response to the king LOWERING tax on Tea. So why the uproar? A bunch of founding Father's were making huge piles of cash selling SMUGGLED TEA. And they were selling it tax free. Less tax would mean more competition for them and less money.

That's just one tiny aspect of it. But yes, like pretty much all wars it was some combination of lust over money and lust over power.

Naturally the grunts fighting in the war really wouldn't see a damn bit of difference either way. But it's easy to appeal to people's emotions. Like in the UK is virtually indistinguishable from life in the US - as much as people in the UK and people the US would like to deny it.
 
2013-01-16 01:51:01 PM  

Phinn: dilatory kid-killer


Added to the BSLOATBTFI.
 
2013-01-16 01:51:42 PM  
Confederate Congressman says what?
 
2013-01-16 01:53:14 PM  

Wangiss: bunner: All health care programs that involve private insurance companies raking in countless billions, paying as close to f*ck all as possible, and paying it to corporate hospitals that charge 7000% over cost for medical care, are bad health care programs. Period.

Wouldn't it be nice if you could buy a good one--one perhaps from a different state that rates among the best in the country? Too bad: illegal.


Wouldn't it be nice if the point of medicine was to practice medicine and not make money hand over fist? And corporate, plutocratic avarice farmers had to suck their billions in from someplace else? And it was payed for the same way we pay for roads and sewers and trash collection? And it was illegal to mark it up to astronomical prices and doctors didn't need a new Lexus every 11 months?
 
2013-01-16 01:53:57 PM  

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."


If Mr. Potatohead indeed ascends the throne, I hope he takes the second of his middle names and that Earth does, in fact, see a King Arthur. Ah, kitschy, I know, but it's the extent of my interest into the British monarchy.
 
2013-01-16 01:55:43 PM  
Oh, wait sorry. I've just heard that a true patriot read my post on common sense health care and became so livid that the ghost of Stalin is now handing out ammo in a schoolyard and laughing. Or maybe I made that up.
 
2013-01-16 01:58:56 PM  
Rand Paul learned his American history from Assassin's Creed III.
 
2013-01-16 01:59:10 PM  

piperTom: Executive action to curtail human right is a travesty


No, the right to self defense is a human right. The right to own a firearm is a separate matter.
 
2013-01-16 02:00:21 PM  
images1.wikia.nocookie.net

"Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal. These aren't my figures, that is the assumption you can gather from" the report."- Ron Paul on Black DC Citizens

"I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities. They could also not be as promiscuous. Is it any wonder the AIDS epidemic started after they 'came out of the closet,' and started hyper-promiscuous sodomy?"- Ron Paul's June 1990 newsletter

"[Martin Luther King, Jr.], the FBI files reveal, was not only a world-class adulterer, he also seduced underage girls and boys...And we are supposed to honor this 'Christian minister' and lying socialist satyr with a holiday that puts him on par with George Washington?" -December 1990 newsletter

Ron Paul is the only one with the balls to stand up to the Zionist Occupied Government and it's half-breed president. Sieg Heil, mein Furher!
 
2013-01-16 02:01:50 PM  
Everything I know about American history I learned from Ubisoft.
 
2013-01-16 02:01:59 PM  

bunner: Wangiss: bunner: All health care programs that involve private insurance companies raking in countless billions, paying as close to f*ck all as possible, and paying it to corporate hospitals that charge 7000% over cost for medical care, are bad health care programs. Period.

Wouldn't it be nice if you could buy a good one--one perhaps from a different state that rates among the best in the country? Too bad: illegal.

Wouldn't it be nice if the point of medicine was to practice medicine and not make money hand over fist? And corporate, plutocratic avarice farmers had to suck their billions in from someplace else? And it was payed for the same way we pay for roads and sewers and trash collection? And it was illegal to mark it up to astronomical prices and doctors didn't need a new Lexus every 11 months?


I think we can all agree that part of that would be nice. But now you HAVE to buy health insurance, so enjoy your new, weaker constitution.
 
2013-01-16 02:02:37 PM  

Lagaidh: 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."

If Mr. Potatohead indeed ascends the throne, I hope he takes the second of his middle names and that Earth does, in fact, see a King Arthur. Ah, kitschy, I know, but it's the extent of my interest into the British monarchy.


I like it.
 
2013-01-16 02:04:03 PM  
I'm sorry, which side has all the billionaires that don't want to pay taxes again?

Plus, he's a Randian (chuckle) so he is absolutely, positively for aristocracy. That's what Ayn Rand was all about.
 
2013-01-16 02:04:38 PM  
I think his index is one off. Try starting with zero instead of one.

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-16 02:04:45 PM  

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.


Don't even know where to start with the stupidity on this one.
 
2013-01-16 02:05:20 PM  
The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants. That's why I support unlimited funding for the military industrial complex. But no restrictions on what firearms I may own. Because when the time comes, the difference between 25 rounds or 26 rounds in the magazine in my AR is totally going to make the difference when they are armed with megaton-yield B83 thermonuclear devices delivered by Stealth Bombers.
 
2013-01-16 02:05:22 PM  

900RR: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: What's scary is some people in here sound like they would be OK with the King idea.

He's already their king! Stupid people love him. The media already said he is "Sort of a God".

[i47.tinypic.com image 640x676]


potatozone.com
 
2013-01-16 02:05:22 PM  
I assume Rand said this before actually knowing what those 23 orders actually were. And, like many of his supporters in this thread, now must feel really, really farking stupid. If his statement and yours actually occurred after reading them then we've reached a new level of stupid that I can't even digest.

KING HUSSEIN TOOK MAH GUNS AWAY = Obama removes some barriers to the background check system, sends some letters to health care and gun sellers reminding them of laws that are already in place and sets up some programs to educate schools etc in emergency response. He also asks congress nicely to pass some laws, only one of which is likely to pass (requiring background checks for private sellers)

Better clutch your guns tight and prepare for the revolution, he's clearly mad with power and is going to bust out into full on Sith Lord mode at any moment.

Yeah, I think Rand and a whole lot of you should quietly back away and hope nobody noticed what you said earlier.
 
2013-01-16 02:06:47 PM  

Wangiss: But now you HAVE to buy health insurance, so enjoy your new, weaker constitution.


I can't wait to be dragged off to this imaginary, illegal since before grandpa wore spats debtors prison when they find out I still can't afford it.
 
2013-01-16 02:06:51 PM  

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.


Strange. I thought it was called being a colony of settlers that didn't read the contracts where they were given land very well.
 
2013-01-16 02:08:12 PM  

Wangiss: I think we can all agree that part of that would be nice


What part wouldn't?
 
2013-01-16 02:09:39 PM  

dascott: KING HUSSEIN TOOK MAH GUNS AWAY = Obama removes some barriers to the background check system, sends some letters to health care and gun sellers reminding them of laws that are already in place and sets up some programs to educate schools etc in emergency response. He also asks congress nicely to pass some laws, only one of which is likely to pass (requiring background checks for private sellers)


The weird thing is it was totally obvious to everyone that this is exactly what was going to happen. When has Obama taken a really strong executive stand on anything? What made people think he was going to start now? People just love to let the NRA get them all frothed up.
 
2013-01-16 02:10:21 PM  

d23: Dog Welder: 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?

Incompetent

So he's in the same class as the Truthers who simultaneously believe that Bush is an idiot and he masterminded the biggest conspiracy in history.


According to the Teahadists, yes.
 
2013-01-16 02:10:46 PM  

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.


THIS. America's trying to have a conversation about a dysfunctional screening system that is legitimately dangerous, and fix the system. 'Responsible gun owners' are sitting down in the middle of the street throwing temper tantrums, claiming that someone wants to ban or take away their guns or rights. But to put it in perspective, it is actually harder for me to get mental health care for diagnosed bipolar disorder than it would be for a gun owner to get a gun under the  proposed laws. There's nothing to scream about. Until they stop screaming, though, what the hell else is society supposed to do? Wait around for them to grow up? And how many more people will die in the process?

Obama's doing the right thing.

/And yes, I'm aware that the SH shooter may not have been the fault of the screening system, but there are hundreds of dead every year that  are. If it took Sandy Hook to get us talking about it, so be it. The system still doesn't farking work.
 
2013-01-16 02:11:15 PM  

PiffMan420: [images1.wikia.nocookie.net image 180x281]

"Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal. These aren't my figures, that is the assumption you can gather from" the report."- Ron Paul on Black DC Citizens

"I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities. They could also not be as promiscuous. Is it any wonder the AIDS epidemic started after they 'came out of the closet,' and started hyper-promiscuous sodomy?"- Ron Paul's June 1990 newsletter

"[Martin Luther King, Jr.], the FBI files reveal, was not only a world-class adulterer, he also seduced underage girls and boys...And we are supposed to honor this 'Christian minister' and lying socialist satyr with a holiday that puts him on par with George Washington?" -December 1990 newsletter

Ron Paul is the only one with the balls to stand up to the Zionist Occupied Government and it's half-breed president. Sieg Heil, mein Furher!


1. "that is the assumption you can gather from" the report."

You're saying that his argument against the legitimacy of the numbers in a report that would imply a disproportionately high number of blacks are criminal... is racist?

2. "Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities."

I don't want to hear about people's sexual activities, either. There should be a difference between public and private, and what's more private than sex? He didn't say the government should force people to hide their activities, or that people should persecute them. Social pressure is voluntary behavior, and enables you more than it disables you. I'm also sad about gays dying in such great numbers from AIDS. I also see at least a temporal connection between the sexual revolution and a rise in STDs and death. If there's more to the rise of STDs than promiscuity, I'm open to learning about it. What about that paragraph makes you upset? The word "homosexual"?

3. That wasn't Ron Paul writing, so it's misleading to put it beneath his picture with other quotes that were his.
 
2013-01-16 02:12:44 PM  
Ah, yes.

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/orders/
 
2013-01-16 02:13:03 PM  

bunner: Wangiss: But now you HAVE to buy health insurance, so enjoy your new, weaker constitution.

I can't wait to be dragged off to this imaginary, illegal since before grandpa wore spats debtors prison when they find out I still can't afford it.


Naw, they'll just take your money via threat of force. I'm sure that'll satisfy your yearning for freedom.
 
2013-01-16 02:13:04 PM  
Somebody's gonna be along any minute now to explain how these 23 items are an unconstitutional power grab, right?
 
2013-01-16 02:13:08 PM  
America was founded by predators and modeled on the notion that we could have endless prey and endless growth.

The prey is pretty much skin and bones, now. we're all moved in. There's nothing left to conquer.

But we're hard wired for predatory, territorial methods.

And so, we're eating each other. On schedule. If you're seated at the card table and you can't figure out who the sucker is, it's you.
 
2013-01-16 02:13:24 PM  
I swear... take away Hollywood, Comedy Central, and LOLCATS, and liberals loose about 80% of their arguments for anything... Try to think for yourself libs... develop some arguments through careful research not mass-media knee-jerk garbage... and for the record, Senator Paul is not very far off base at all with this comment!
 
2013-01-16 02:13:54 PM  
According to Republicans:

Presidents are the ones who write the budget AND create spending bills.

President are NOT allowed to give directives (these are called "executive orders") to the agencies under the executive branch.

And this people keep pretending they read the constitution and know history!!!
 
2013-01-16 02:14:34 PM  

Wangiss: Naw, they'll just take your money via threat of force. I'm sure that'll satisfy your yearning for freedom.


Hey, they can have the Rolls. They ashtrays are full anyhoo. Oh, look. That turnip is bleeding. *snort*
 
2013-01-16 02:14:37 PM  

bunner: Wangiss: I think we can all agree that part of that would be nice

What part wouldn't?


Paying for health care through taxes enables the government to graft, waste, and limit my choices. I prefer no middlemen between me and my doctor. I don't like insurance and I don't like bureaucrats.
 
2013-01-16 02:15:53 PM  

BlindRaise: I swear... take away Hollywood, Comedy Central, and LOLCATS, and liberals loose about 80% of their arguments for anything... Try to think for yourself libs... develop some arguments through careful research not mass-media knee-jerk garbage... and for the record, Senator Paul is not very far off base at all with this comment!


Republicans are dumb. He isnt far off base? Why didnt he just state facts instead of acting like a whining drama queen.
 
2013-01-16 02:16:52 PM  

Wangiss: Paying for health care through taxes enables the government to graft, waste, and limit my choices.


So, like now, only it's graft, waste and limited choices from multi-billion dollar corporate hospitals? I think you're overlooking the fact that implementing medicine for the sake of medicine would entail kicking the sort of bureaucratic pisspails you're so worried about to the curb.
 
2013-01-16 02:17:03 PM  

Wangiss: I think we can all agree that part of that would be nice. But now you HAVE to buy health insurance, so enjoy your new, weaker constitution.


no you don't. Anyone can not buy insurance. You just have to pay a fee/tax if you make a certain amount and don't buy it.
 
2013-01-16 02:17:09 PM  
Obama signs executive orders on gun control
Obama calls for ban on sale of assault weapons and issues 23 executive orders


Allow me to say: BWAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
 
2013-01-16 02:19:22 PM  
BlindRaise: I swear... take away Hollywood, Comedy Central, and LOLCATS, and liberals loose about 80% of their arguments for anything...

So, broad stroke, baseless and overhyped pronouncements are like the GOP's lolcats? : \
 
2013-01-16 02:19:52 PM  

Wangiss: bunner: Wangiss: I think we can all agree that part of that would be nice

What part wouldn't?

Paying for health care through taxes enables the government to graft, waste, and limit my choices. I prefer no middlemen between me and my doctor. I don't like insurance and I don't like bureaucrats.


It's got to be better than the garbage we have now. Our private, unregulated healthcare can't compete with many 3rd world government run health care systems. There are some things the free market simply cannot do.
 
2013-01-16 02:20:10 PM  

GrizzlyPouch: The fact that we're talking about this even in a satirical is at least a little eye brow raising

I mean this is probably how it starts:

Ha ole Obama is at it with the executive orders again.

Then

Kind of scary how much he can accomplish with executive order

Then

Oh shiat he just executive ordered the elimination of term limits and congress. Hail King Obama

/I say this tounge in cheek but historically hasn't it kind of happened like this?


No.
 
2013-01-16 02:20:45 PM  

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.


It already has!
 
2013-01-16 02:24:34 PM  

hitlersbrain: It's got to be better than the garbage we have now. Our private, unregulated healthcare can't compete with many 3rd world government run health care systems. There are some things the free market simply cannot do.


Some things cannot function as intended when their use and methods are dictated by a profit motive. Bridges, roads, sewers, medicine... Because what they are for is not about moving money around. Medicine isn't designed to be a cash cow. It's supposed to be societal infrastructure. Because we all die. And putting that gun to somebody's head to keep them alive isn't medicine. It's extortion.
 
2013-01-16 02:25:06 PM  
thepoliticalcarnival.net
 
2013-01-16 02:27:20 PM  
I suppose this should all get back on topic now. Sorry. Gun violence does seem to be health related, though.
 
2013-01-16 02:27:26 PM  

someonelse: Somebody's gonna be along any minute now to explain how these 23 items are an unconstitutional power grab, right?


Well obviously they are because B. Hussein Obama did it.
 
2013-01-16 02:27:34 PM  

BronyMedic: 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.


And being right up with the current issues facing our nation. Because having a king is such a timely problem.
 
2013-01-16 02:30:16 PM  

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


Seriously. There's nothing heroic about this. "Snarky" maybe, or "Attention Whore".

And to Rand Paul: if this nation hadn't forgotten how to have a rational and considered debate where we achieve a consensus, then we might not need executive action. But instead all we have are people so far off to either side that all they can do is scream in the other direction.
 
2013-01-16 02:30:22 PM  

The Muthaship: 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 ____________________.


Nice.

Obama could bomb Iran and (most) Farkers would say "I am OK with that". A republican makes that same decision - "OMG! What a criminal!"

Fact.
 
2013-01-16 02:35:02 PM  
i.imgur.com

No one remembers? Seriously?

Just ONE President ago?
 
2013-01-16 02:35:45 PM  
To the stupid libs on this thread: taxation without representation is exactly what real kings do. Even toy monarchies like the present UK one tax us without representing us.
 
2013-01-16 02:37:40 PM  
Yeah, every year I get a printout of all the beneficial things that represent the needs of the common good that were accomplished with whatever the IRS picked my pocket for. USA! USA!
 
2013-01-16 02:41:47 PM  
Is it time for White People Mourning Mitt Romney? Could be...
 
2013-01-16 02:43:19 PM  
/Bump for Rand Paul. F the rest of DC.
 
2013-01-16 02:43:49 PM  
So the President's been called a commie, a nazi, and now a monarchist.

Can't you just stick with 1 of the above?
 
2013-01-16 02:44:38 PM  

hitlersbrain: I'm sorry, which side has all the billionaires that don't want to pay taxes again?

Plus, he's a Randian (chuckle) so he is absolutely, positively for aristocracy. That's what Ayn Rand was all about.


WTF are you even trying to say?
 
2013-01-16 02:48:37 PM  
At first, income taxes were considered a temporary tax to help raise money for war. The first time an income tax was enacted was in 1799 in Great Britain to help the British pay for troops and supplies to defeat the French forces led by Napoleon.

In the War of 1812, the U.S. first considered enacting an income tax, but the war ended before the tax was officially created. Yet, during the American Civil War, the first U.S. income tax was created, but this one was meant only as a temporary measure to help pay for the war. It was repealed in 1872.

By the 1890s, the U.S. government was hoping to find a way to more evenly distribute the federal tax burden and thus looked at creating a permanent income tax. However, until the 16th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified n 1913, the federal government was forced to collect taxes based on state population.