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 161
    More: Hero, obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Christian Broadcasting Network, White House Press Secretary, Rand Paul, assault weapons, NRA  
•       •       •

12833 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-01-16 08:29:32 AM  
39 votes:
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  
24 votes:
We get it. If you can't win on real issues, just start making shiat up
2013-01-16 09:21:27 AM  
20 votes:
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 09:09:30 AM  
16 votes:

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 08:36:52 AM  
14 votes:

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.
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-16 09:05:40 AM  
12 votes:

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 10:03:33 AM  
10 votes:
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 08:39:37 AM  
10 votes:

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.
2013-01-16 09:45:29 AM  
9 votes:

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 08:37:04 AM  
9 votes:
Is everything going green this morning?  Hero tag?  Really?
2013-01-16 10:20:25 AM  
8 votes:
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 09:53:47 AM  
8 votes:
"I'm against having a king. "

That makes him a Democrat, not a Republican.
2013-01-16 09:31:06 AM  
8 votes:

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 10:18:35 AM  
7 votes:
"I'm against having a king," he said Tuesday in an interview in Jerusalem with the Christian Broadcasting Network.

Uhm...
2013-01-16 10:24:15 AM  
6 votes:

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 10:47:51 AM  
4 votes:

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 10:46:50 AM  
4 votes:

TheOther: He was raised by RON PAUL.

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


Genetics.
2013-01-16 10:44:35 AM  
4 votes:

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 10:42:47 AM  
4 votes:

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 10:31:43 AM  
4 votes:

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 10:23:19 AM  
4 votes:
soooo, he was being interviewed by a network that promotes the King of Kings?
2013-01-16 10:23:10 AM  
4 votes:

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 09:47:19 AM  
4 votes:

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 11:51:04 AM  
3 votes:

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 10:51:56 AM  
3 votes:

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 10:48:57 AM  
3 votes:
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 10:41:58 AM  
3 votes:
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 10:41:28 AM  
3 votes:
So everyone remembers that the founding fathers wanted to make George Washington the American king, but he refused, right?
2013-01-16 10:30:07 AM  
3 votes:
Ahh republicans, leading the world in bold stances against issues that don't exist and no one is endorsing.
2013-01-16 10:25:26 AM  
3 votes:
lazytraders.com
2013-01-16 10:24:18 AM  
3 votes:
Ever notice that taxation WITH representation isn't all it's cracked up to be either?
2013-01-16 09:37:10 AM  
3 votes:
TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!

But ok, thanks for playing Rand Paul.
2013-01-16 03:19:54 PM  
2 votes:

Wangiss: If you could buy insurance from across state lines, you would have more options. There are rating systems in place already, but you can't use them because the best systems are almost definitely not in your state. What if insurance had some incentive to try and be the best, like tools manufacturers do? I can buy any brand of electric drill I want, even from overseas. So I buy quality when I need it and thrift when I need that. Instead, it's illegal to sell over state lines because of an artificial anti-competitive rule that was instituted by politicians courted by the large companies that could afford to operate multi-state despite the regulations. This is what politicians are doing all day every day. It's bad for your health.


More bad choices does not seem like an answer. You can't run something like healthcare like a private enterprise. A private company's first and foremost goal is to make money. This is 100% at odds with the goal of healthcare. You at LEAST need some SERIOUS regulation to keep providers from just taking the money and running (like they do now). The best solution is just to nationalize it like the armed forces and police.
2013-01-16 12:43:47 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:23:01 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:10:13 PM  
2 votes:
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 11:59:25 AM  
2 votes:

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 11:57:16 AM  
2 votes:
F*CK YOU RAND PAUL YOU COCK
2013-01-16 11:36:48 AM  
2 votes:
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 11:20:27 AM  
2 votes:

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 11:19:40 AM  
2 votes:
i.cdn.turner.com
"The person I wanted to be president wasn't elected, that means this is a MONARCHY!!!"
2013-01-16 11:01:37 AM  
2 votes:
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 11:00:50 AM  
2 votes:

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 10:47:06 AM  
2 votes:
I can't wait until this guy is president.
Bf+
2013-01-16 10:43:40 AM  
2 votes:
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 10:43:07 AM  
2 votes:
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.
2013-01-16 10:42:03 AM  
2 votes:
"Republicans are idiots" becomes less and less of a broad brush stereotype every day.
2013-01-16 10:41:31 AM  
2 votes:

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 10:38:35 AM  
2 votes:

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 10:37:00 AM  
2 votes:
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 10:36:02 AM  
2 votes:
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 10:34:52 AM  
2 votes:

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 10:34:50 AM  
2 votes:
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 10:30:35 AM  
2 votes:

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 10:29:50 AM  
2 votes:

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.
2013-01-16 10:29:11 AM  
2 votes:
Can't believe a guy that dumb about the real world made it through med school.
2013-01-16 10:28:55 AM  
2 votes:
He was raised by RON PAUL.

RON PAUL, how did you get your kid THIS STUPID?
2013-01-16 10:25:57 AM  
2 votes:
The hero tag is a joke, right?
2013-01-16 10:24:59 AM  
2 votes:
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 10:19:50 AM  
2 votes:
Loonie.
Wonder what color the sky is in his world.
In other news, Rand Paul should NOT own a firearm.
2013-01-16 10:14:26 AM  
2 votes:

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 09:31:11 AM  
2 votes:
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 05:14:50 PM  
1 votes:
There shouldn't be any limits.

I have the right to own whatever the government may own. They get their authority from me, by delegation. They cannot, as a matter of simple logic, have any legitimate power that I do not first have, nor do I lose it by merely allowing them to act, in a few limited capacities, as my agent.

They are not my masters and I am not their servant.
2013-01-16 04:41:50 PM  
1 votes:
"..I think having a monarch is what we fought the American Revolution over"
Is this his opinion or something he remembers?
2013-01-16 04:27:11 PM  
1 votes:
So you see, kids. Guns, no guns, kings, no kings, people barking ostensibly urgent bullsh*t, people staring at their feet in a cold water flat - all inconsequential. The pooch has been deflowered, the system is doing what all abused systems do when you abuse them for far too long and the etch a sketch is gonna get shaken. History has a nice, cold coroner's slab ready for the autopsy on the America we allowed to be wracked to scrap metal and tossed into the trunk of a limo, and when the sh*t hits the ventilation device, try and remember what got us there and make it your mission to not allow the same bad ideas v.2.0 to replace what we lost. I wont be around for that. Take notes.
2013-01-16 03:42:29 PM  
1 votes:

Wook: 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?


For the slow people...

1. Rand Paul is a libertardian who believes the author Ayn Rand was some kind of super genius.

2. Ayn Rand believed strongly in aristocracy (some people are just better and should rule the rest of use like KINGS). She also fits nicely into the category of fascist since these people are only special because they are rich.

3. Rand Paul is thereby for aristocracy and kings so his statement that he is against kings is stupid.

4. Billionaires who don't feel they should pay taxes are (defacto) wanna be aristocracy.
2013-01-16 02:59:45 PM  
1 votes:
Annual deaths related to firearms in the United States: 29,000. Annual deaths related to prescription drugs: 32,000. Annual deaths related to alcohol: 85,000. Related to tobacco: 435,000. Marijuana? 0. Not a single case of death ever recorded in the United States, or even the world has been attributed to the use of marijuana.

Wait....what were we talk'n about?
2013-01-16 02:59:26 PM  
1 votes:
ANY form of medical care that has a primary purpose of creating huge profits is USELESS and NOT medical care. It's leveraged banking. Period. Fullstop. Reboot system.
2013-01-16 02:52:04 PM  
1 votes:
Your precious, sweet, free, apple pie America got whored out 100 years ago. I miss it, too, but all this "king" jazz is beyond nonsense. img1.fark.net
2013-01-16 02:27:26 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:25:06 PM  
1 votes:
thepoliticalcarnival.net
2013-01-16 02:13:24 PM  
1 votes:
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 02:10:46 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:55:43 PM  
1 votes:
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 01:51:42 PM  
1 votes:
Confederate Congressman says what?
2013-01-16 01:12:59 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:01:18 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:59:31 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:58:12 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:55:01 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:54:01 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:50:31 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:49:36 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:47:10 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:44:08 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:40:45 PM  
1 votes:
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 12:39:17 PM  
1 votes:
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 12:39:16 PM  
1 votes:
I'm against knee jerk hyperbole. I think that's what we have the Internet for.
2013-01-16 12:37:32 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:18:18 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:12:55 PM  
1 votes:
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 12:07:29 PM  
1 votes:
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 12:07:28 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:06:54 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:06:29 PM  
1 votes:
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 12:05:14 PM  
1 votes:

SlothB77: Drudge is reporting


media.giantbomb.com
2013-01-16 11:59:19 AM  
1 votes:
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 11:57:02 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:53:31 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:46:59 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:46:45 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:43:28 AM  
1 votes:
KINGS DO NOT "ANNOUNCE PROPOSALS" YOU IDIOT

/ashamed he had to use caps
2013-01-16 11:33:48 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:32:19 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:31:53 AM  
1 votes:
weknowmemes.com
2013-01-16 11:26:42 AM  
1 votes:
How DARE the executive exercise executive measures. How DARE he?
2013-01-16 11:22:10 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:21:03 AM  
1 votes:
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 11:20:41 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:18:38 AM  
1 votes:
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 11:18:34 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:18:05 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:17:15 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:15:46 AM  
1 votes:

Brick-House: Not bad, just unwanted.


then you shoulda made sure Romney won.

you didn't.

try again next time.
2013-01-16 11:13:15 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:13:07 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:12:37 AM  
1 votes:

BMFPitt: unconstitutional power grab,


Hi, Area Man.
2013-01-16 11:12:05 AM  
1 votes:
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 11:10:46 AM  
1 votes:
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 11:10:02 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:09:32 AM  
1 votes:
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 11:09:07 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:08:49 AM  
1 votes:
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 11:08:28 AM  
1 votes:

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


Which one? King George I or King George II ?
2013-01-16 11:07:02 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:06:45 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:00:39 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:59:18 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:57:12 AM  
1 votes:
What do you think they're going to charge him with? "Presidenting while being Black"?
2013-01-16 10:55:38 AM  
1 votes:

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


Have you heard of the emancipation proclamation?
2013-01-16 10:53:31 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:53:15 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:52:29 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:51:36 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:50:29 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:50:28 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:48:49 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:47:14 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:41:38 AM  
1 votes:

clane: You gitty Liberals should head warning


I can't parse that.
2013-01-16 10:40:42 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:40:07 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:39:16 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:38:28 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:37:30 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:36:05 AM  
1 votes:
Obama's a king now? So I gather he recently abolished term limits and appointed an heir to the throne?
2013-01-16 10:35:27 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:33:46 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:33:31 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:33:29 AM  
1 votes:
2013-01-16 10:33:17 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:31:22 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:30:36 AM  
1 votes:
so ... what did he think about bush, i wonder.
2013-01-16 10:29:49 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:28:11 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:27:55 AM  
1 votes:
Wow, I should have guessed this thread would attract a few crazies.
2013-01-16 10:27:39 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:26:28 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:21:59 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:54:34 AM  
1 votes:

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


troll headline is for trolls
2013-01-16 09:47:31 AM  
1 votes:

jylcat: TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!

But ok, thanks for playing Rand Paul.



daviding.com


We've come a long way, baby.
2013-01-16 09:33:59 AM  
1 votes:
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!"
 
Displayed 161 of 161 comments

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