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

(CNN)   Rand Paul lays down the line on Obama's imperial ambitions: "I'm against having a king...I think having a monarch is what we fought the American Revolution over"   (politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com) divider line 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 (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-16 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.
 
Displayed 50 of 628 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report