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

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

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



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

Archived thread

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

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report