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 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.
 
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