Support NeoGAF

[Metaphoreus]

Oklahoma governor says executions to proceed despite court-ordered stays: Mary Fallin said state supreme court lacks authority to stay executions, but experts say governor's order legally untenable

It's important to understand that Oklahoma has two high courts: a Supreme Court that decides civil cases, and a Court of Criminal Appeals that decides criminal cases. It sounds like the governor's challenge is based on this division, rather than simply saying that the courts, in general, can't stay an execution. In other words, it sounds like the governor's position is that only the Court of Criminal Appeals can stay an execution, and that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction in that area.

That's not to say she's right, of course.

 

[Piecake]

Private probation: A juicy secret

Since my thread a while back on private probation companies failed miserably, I will just post this here.

Since 2001 private companies have overseen misdemeanant probation, which includes not just minor crimes such as shoplifting, petty theft and public drunkenness, but also speeding tickets and other traffic violations.

When probationers cannot pay, courts issue warrants for their arrest and their probation terms are extended—a reprehensible practice known as "tolling", which a judge declared illegal last year. These are folks who had trouble paying the initial fine; you have to imagine they'll have trouble paying additional fines. It's plausible to posit that these firms' business models are based on assigning unpayable fees to people who lack the sophistication, time, will or whatever to contest them.

HB837 reverses last year's judicial order banning tolling... but it then shields this information from disclosure laws.

The initial draft of the bill reportedly contained planks limiting the monthly fees private-probation companies can charge (state entities charge $23 a month for felony supervision; private firms charge between $39 and $44 for misdemeanants), but a Senate committee took that plank out. By a strange coincidence, less than a week earlier that committee's chair, Jesse Stone, who is running to be Burke County State Judge, received a glowing letter of recommendation from the head of the very private-probation firm used by Burke County to supervise misdemeanor probation (Mr Stone insists the recommendation letter had nothing do to with what happened to the bill in the committee that he heads).

Democracy at work. The governor has a week to veto it before it becomes law

 

[KingGondo]

I get that it's more complicated than the headline states, but Mary Fallin has been an embarrassment for our state. Our infrastructure, public safety and health programs, and education systems are insanely underfunded, and we're about to further cut the state income tax.

It will take decades to undo the damage that our current state government is doing.

I would really, really hate being a poor person in my state. The deck is stacked against you.

 

[Jooney]

FCC Proposes New Rules For Net Neutrality

WASHINGTON — The Federal Communications Commission will propose new rules that allow Internet service providers to offer a faster lane through which to send video and other content to consumers, as long as a content company is willing to pay for it, according to people briefed on the proposals.

The new rules, according to the people briefed on them, will allow a company like Comcast or Verizon to negotiate separately with each content company – like Netflix, Amazon, Disney or Google – and charge different companies different amounts for priority service.

That, of course, could increase costs for content companies, which would then have an incentive to pass on those costs to consumers as part of their subscription prices.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Kind of an incendiary article. I think the local article explains it a little better. It's more complicated than Gov ignores Supreme Court.

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-gov.-mary-fallin-stays-execution/article/4303223

The problem is that Oklahoma's court is bifurcated.

The problem is that there is a pending case about the drugs used by the state to carry out executions. This is a civil issue handled by the state Supreme Court

The criminal appeal of the execution and the execution date was issued is handled by the Court of Criminal Appeals, however.

The execution is, of course, performed by the state itself, rather than the courts, though, and both the civil and criminal courts have a say in the matter - the criminal court on sentencing itself, and the civil court on the carrying out and execution of the sentence.


What the governor has done is ignored both courts. Instead of accepting the stay issued by the Supreme Court, she's scheduled the execution for the day they hear the case about the pending drugs.

The only party that's acting improperly here is, in my opinion, the governor. Instead of letting due process play out, she is putting pressure on the Supreme Court to make a hasty decision on their pending case so that she can get on with the execution. She should respect the court's order for a stay and wait, not schedule the execution for the date of the case. Maybe she wants to appear like she's not favoring one court over the other, but her actions actually play favorites with the Court of Criminal Appeals while also disrespecting the courts altogether, and she doesn't seem to understand that :/

 

[Aaron Strife]

Obummer-in-chief caves yet again

Exactly how the president has weighed the decision on Keystone is a closely guarded secret in the White House, known only to a few senior advisors like Valerie Jarrett and Dan Pfeiffer. But it's no surprise that I was told recently by members of the administration that the pipeline would, in fact, be rejected. "If the president is really serious about his legacy on climate change, he can't have that and approve Keystone," an Obama insider told me. "The only question now is the timing of the announcement."

 

[empty vessel]

Kind of an incendiary article. I think the local article explains it a little better. It's more complicated than Gov ignores Supreme Court.

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-gov.-mary-fallin-stays-execution/article/4303223

The problem is that Oklahoma's court is bifurcated.

The governor doesn't decide whether a court has jurisdiction to act, so the order is a flagrant violation of the rule of law. And the governor is not faced with two conflicting orders. There is a court order preventing the governor from executing the individual. The article states that "the Court of Criminal Appeals twice refused to issue stays," but that's not what happened. It simply refused to exercise jurisdiction to decide the issue, despite the Supreme Court's holding that it had jurisdiction to do so. (The Oklahoma constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to settle disputes over jurisdiction between the two courts.) When the CCA refused to exercise jurisdiction despite the Supreme Court's ruling that it had jurisdiction, the Supreme Court felt constitutionally compelled to do so in order not to deny the right of access to the courts.

 

[GaimeGuy]

It's important to understand that Oklahoma has two high courts: a Supreme Court that decides civil cases, and a Court of Criminal Appeals that decides criminal cases. It sounds like the governor's challenge is based on this division, rather than simply saying that the courts, in general, can't stay an execution. In other words, it sounds like the governor's position is that only the Court of Criminal Appeals can stay an execution, and that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction in that area.

That's not to say she's right, of course.

It's not right. Because the activity of the state would ultimately fall under the state supreme court's jurisdiction. Since there is a case pending about how the state executes people, a stay on pending executions is not only appropriate, but prudent.

And as EV said, it's not the governor's role to decide jurisdiction.

Edit:

It should be an obviously implied power that the state SC has the sole right to decide on jurisdictional disputes between the two courts, since that is an activity of the state, but if the Oklahoma constitution gives the state Supreme Court the power to settle disputes over jurisdiction between the two courts explicitely, then there's really no crisis, and this is a blatant violation of the rule of law. If the Supreme Court thinks it has the right to step in and overrule the Court of Criminal Appeals on grounds of jurisdiction, then it has that right. No ifs, ands, or buts. They have the right, the governor is a tyrant, and the stay is valid.

 

[Black Mamba]

The governor doesn't decide whether a court has jurisdiction to act, so the order is a flagrant violation of the rule of law. And the governor is not faced with two conflicting orders. There is a court order preventing the governor from executing the individual. The article states that "the Court of Criminal Appeals twice refused to issue stays," but that's not what happened. It simply refused to exercise jurisdiction to decide the issue, despite the Supreme Court's holding that it had jurisdiction to do so. (The Oklahoma constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to settle disputes over jurisdiction between the two courts.) When the CCA refused to exercise jurisdiction despite the Supreme Court's ruling that it had jurisdiction, the Supreme Court felt constitutionally compelled to do so in order not to deny the right of access to the courts.

This makes sense. I didn't respond earlier because the issue was very confusing but now it makes sense.

 

[Arkos]

Is there a website that gives me simple information about each state, what they will be voting for, and who the candidates for each office are in each election?

 

[Sibylus]

Obummer-in-chief caves yet again

Harper's aides to respond with even more strained 1973 scaremongering and laughable insistence that the whole thing is green?

 

[smokeandmirrors]

Gary Johnson did another ama on reddit

http://np.reddit.com/user/GovGaryJohnson/submitted/

he's done 15 of them. How many times can you say 'fuck the poor' to internet libertarians who are going to slob on your knob anyway before it gets old.

 

[WayneMorse]

Rand Paul Says Jimmy Carter Was Better on the Budget Than Ronald Reagan

Stuff like this will kill him in 2016, I'm sure the NY Times are sitting on an expose of all the crazy shit Rand did before 2009 and all the neo-Nazis/Confederates he hung around with.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Rand Paul Says Jimmy Carter Was Better on the Budget Than Ronald Reagan

Stuff like this will kill him in 2016, I'm sure the NY Times are sitting on an expose of all the crazy shit Rand did before 2009 and all the neo-Nazis/Confederates he hung around with.

Mojo will beat them to the punch.

 

[Oblivion]

UPDATE: After this article was posted, Paul's office sent this statement from the senator: "I have always been and continue to be a great supporter of Ronald Reagan's tax cuts and the millions of jobs they created. Clearly spending during his tenure did not lessen, but he also had to contend with Democrat majorities in Congress."

So the great Prophet Reagan (PBUH) was able to singlehandedly crush the Soviet Union but was a powerless little girly man when it came to handling a Democratic congress?

 

[adg1034]

So the great Prophet Reagan (PBUH) was able to singlehandedly crush the Soviet Union but was a powerless little girly man when it came to handling a Democratic congress?

Reagan hu akbar.

 

[Joe Molotov]

So the great Prophet Reagan (PBUH) was able to singlehandedly crush the Soviet Union but was a powerless little girly man when it came to handling a Democratic congress?

That's because he was dedicated to reaching across the aisle and working with Tip O'Neill instead of enforcing his will with executive orders and throwing out the constitution like our tyrant-in-chief.

 

[GaimeGuy]

My new title is awesome

 

[speculawyer]

Rand Paul Says Jimmy Carter Was Better on the Budget Than Ronald Reagan

Stuff like this will kill him in 2016, I'm sure the NY Times are sitting on an expose of all the crazy shit Rand did before 2009 and all the neo-Nazis/Confederates he hung around with.

Yeah .. . but it is true! Heck, Reagan ran up more debt that every president before him COMBINED. So to some degree, this kind of thing can help him in some quarters. It could help him with the REAL fiscal conservatives. And it could help in the general a bit with some.

But yeah, that will make it pretty hard for him to win the GOP nomination.

 

[rocketknight]

Baton Rouge - Bill to ban discrimination against gays withdrawn by sponsor.

I was one of the people who spoke to the committee in support of the bill yesterday morning. It was disheartening but not unexpected.

 

[Piecake]

Baton Rouge - Bill to ban discrimination against gays withdrawn by sponsor.

I was one of the people who spoke to the committee in support of the bill yesterday morning. It was disheartening but not unexpected.

Gotta protect the religious freedom to discriminate against people

 

[Metaphoreus]

The governor doesn't decide whether a court has jurisdiction to act, so the order is a flagrant violation of the rule of law. And the governor is not faced with two conflicting orders. There is a court order preventing the governor from executing the individual. The article states that "the Court of Criminal Appeals twice refused to issue stays," but that's not what happened. It simply refused to exercise jurisdiction to decide the issue, despite the Supreme Court's holding that it had jurisdiction to do so. (The Oklahoma constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to settle disputes over jurisdiction between the two courts.) When the CCA refused to exercise jurisdiction despite the Supreme Court's ruling that it had jurisdiction, the Supreme Court felt constitutionally compelled to do so in order not to deny the right of access to the courts.

It's not as straightforward as you make it appear. It's true that the governor doesn't decide whether a court has jurisdiction to act. In this case, the Supreme Court of Oklahoma has long held that it has no jurisdiction to order a stay of execution. An order from a court without jurisdiction is void, plain and simple. (That's not to say ignoring the order would be prudent. EDIT: In fact, I think the prudent thing for the governor to have done--assuming the governor, herself, has authority to delay the executions--would have been to state that, though the Supreme Court's order is void for lack of jurisdiction, she would use her authority to order the executions delayed until the two high courts resolved their dispute.)

And while it's true that the Oklahoma Constitution provides that, "in the event there is any conflict as to jurisdiction, the Supreme Court shall determine which court has jurisdiction and such determination shall be final," that provision doesn't permit the Supreme Court to simply confer jurisdiction on the Court of Criminal Appeals where there isn't any to begin with. The Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction to order stays of execution as provided in Okla. Stat. tit. 22, s. 1001.1, which provides in pertinent part:

When an action challenging the conviction or sentence of death is pending before it, the Court of Criminal Appeals may stay an execution date, or issue any order which effectively stays an execution date only upon a showing by the defendant that there exists a significant possibility of reversal of the defendant's conviction, or vacation of the defendant's sentence, and that irreparable harm will result if no stay is issued.

The Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that it had no jurisdiction to order a stay of execution, because there was no "action challenging the conviction or sentence of death . . . pending before it." Instead, there was merely a civil lawsuit pending before the Supreme Court. Judge Lumpkin, in a special concurrence to the CCA's Order Denying Stays of Execution, pointed out that the convicts could easily invoke the CCA's power to order a stay of execution by filing "an application for post-conviction relief with the Court of Criminal Appeals . . . . [which includes] any challenge to the execution protocol." But the convicts' attorneys refused to do so.

And, when reading about this, people should bear in mind that the convicts aren't alleging that their Eighth Amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment are being violated. In fact, they withdrew every challenge they had originally made based on the federal Constitution so that the case couldn't be removed to federal court. Their complaint is that their right to access the Oklahoma courts is being violated by the secrecy of the identities of the executioners and the source(s) of the drugs that will be used to execute them. If they prevail on their claim, the remedy won't be to overturn their convictions or sentences; it would be to order that the executions and sources be identified. In other words, their challenge is not one which could directly lead to the sparing of their lives.

 

[Oblivion]

This revision is even less plausible than your last attempted revision. Tell me, what percentage of income accrued to the "1%," where "1%" doesn't actually mean the entire top percentile in terms of income or wealth, but instead an indefinite subset of that group which includes, at least, Warren Buffett? I'm certain you can find many sources showing the income of the top 1% (as that term is properly understood), and very few--I'd venture to guess none--that provide such information for the subset that you now claim constitutes the "1%." And that's because, until just now, not a single human believed that the "1%" was defined in the way you suggest here.

I'm really surprised you're still arguing this. This is entirely about semantics at this point. Who gives a shit if the 1% consists of people who are not millionaires?

Your definition of "thoroughly destroyed" must be as idiosyncratic as your definition of the "1%." If you're still waiting for evidence that the conservative groups were inappropriately targeted--a year after the IRS, Eric Holder, and Barack Obama admitted that such was the case--then there's no evidence in all the world that could persuade you of the truth of that assertion.

So can you explain what exactly was Obama's master plan by delaying these groups confirmation for tax exempt status?

 

[Metaphoreus]

I'm really surprised you're still arguing this. This is entirely about semantics at this point. Who gives a shit if the 1% consists of people who are not millionaires?

An accurate conception of reality is valuable on its own.

So can you explain what exactly was Obama's master plan by delaying these groups confirmation for tax exempt status?

I have no reason to believe Obama was involved in the scandal. If you want conspiracy theories, you'll need to consult empty vessel.

 

[Oblivion]

I have no reason to believe Obama was involved in the scandal. If you want conspiracy theories, you'll need to consult empty vessel.

So what do you think went on, exactly? And under whose orders?

edit: and wait, Empty Vessel is the one who is peddling conspiracy theories?

 

[kehs]

We've heard claims like this since almost the beginning of the IRS scandal. The fact that these groups appeared on a list doesn't mean they were targeted like conservative groups were. As I argued nearly a year ago, it makes the scandal worse:

An accurate conception of reality is valuable on its own.

I have no reason to believe Obama was involved in the scandal. If you want conspiracy theories, you'll need to consult empty vessel.

Maybe you should expound what you mean by "makes the scandal worse" then.

 

[RustyNails]

I have no reason to believe Obama was involved in the scandal. If you want conspiracy theories, you'll need to consult empty vessel.

Wait, what conspiracy theories ev believes in? Or is that something to do with DB Cooper?

 

[Oblivion]

Did anyone see Sean Hannity's pathetic rebuttal against Jon Stewart for his shenanigans with Cliven Bundy? He dedicated a whole segment to it and whined about how Stewart took him out of context, yet not once did he mention the little detail about Bundy and his buddies actually showing up WITH GUNS with the intention to shoot the guys from the BLM.

 

[Metaphoreus]

So what do you think went on, exactly? And under whose orders?

I think certain conservative groups were targeted for further scrutiny on account of certain conservative-sounding terms being included in their names. It's possible that they were intentionally subjected to undue delays and harassment, but I still wouldn't entirely rule out simple incompetence. It's almost certain that Lois Lerner was involved in any intentional misconduct by the IRS.

Maybe you should expound what you mean by "makes the scandal worse" then.

I did:

However, given what we already knew about groups with the word "Progressive" in their names, this revelation really only raises more questions. If "Progressive" was on the BOLO list just like "Tea Party," why was every single Tea Party application flagged and held up when only a fraction of "Progressive" groups were? To my mind, this information makes the situation look worse, not better. The IRS apparently recognized that "Tea Party" and "Progressive" are equally indicative of substantial campaign intervention (and I continue to maintain that neither is sufficiently indicative to alone justify further scrutiny), yet they only flagged "Tea Party" applications as a class.

Wait, what conspiracy theories ev believes in? Or is that something to do with DB Cooper?

That the IRS targeting scandal is a Republican conspiracy to disparage enforcement of the Internal Revenue Code.

EDIT: Also, this is Post # 100 for me in this thread, which means I've now posted more than Cyan, and am number 18 in overall posts in this thread. Face it, I'm one of you now.

Also, regarding posts in this thread, what the hell, APKmetsfan?

 

[WayneMorse]

Oklahoma Court Rejects Inmates' Request To Reveal Source Of Execution Drugs

So what wants to play 'GUESS THE MYSTERY DRUG?'

 

[East Lake]

I don't think that's much of a conspiracy. What effect should it have other than to make the IRS more apprehensive about enforcing its laws? This is light work for Darrell Issa who spent his time before congress stealing and burning cars, carrying illegal weapons, and committing insurance fraud.

 

[benjipwns]

Is there a website that gives me simple information about each state, what they will be voting for, and who the candidates for each office are in each election?

http://ballotpedia.org/Main_Page

 

[Metaphoreus]

I don't think that's much of a conspiracy. What effect should it have other than to make the IRS more apprehensive about enforcing its laws? This is light work for Darrell Issa who spent his time before congress stealing and burning cars, carrying illegal weapons, and committing insurance fraud.

Why would it make the IRS more apprehensive of enforcing federal law?* The problem isn't that they enforced the law, but that they abused their enforcement power--and in a nakedly partisan manner.

In fact, following the scandal, the Treasury Dept. proposed even more stringent regulations governing 501(c)(4) organizations. Clearly they're not apprehensive about enforcement.

*I'm saying "federal" law, rather than "its" laws because some people actually believe that the Internal Revenue Code is created by the IRS. It isn't--it's enacted by Congress and signed by the president, same as all federal statutes. I don't think you thought this, but I just wanted to be clear.

 

[Joe Molotov]

Oklahoma Court Rejects Inmates' Request To Reveal Source Of Execution Drugs

So what wants to play 'GUESS THE MYSTERY DRUG?'

Aunty Fallin says...

BUST A DEAL, FACE THE WHEEL!

 

[Joe Molotov]

Did anyone see Sean Hannity's pathetic rebuttal against Jon Stewart for his shenanigans with Cliven Bundy? He dedicated a whole segment to it and whined about how Stewart took him out of context, yet not once did he mention the little detail about Bundy and his buddies actually showing up WITH GUNS with the intention to shoot the guys from the BLM.

Continues to be relevant:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwfNFpBGHds

 

[Wilsongt]

It's not even worth commenting on anymore.

The Missouri House Wants to Impeach Governor Jay Nixon Over Gays and Guns

The Republican-controlled Missouri House will begin impeachment proceedings against Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon on Wednesday. Why? There are three reasons, according to the state legislature's judiciary committee. First, Nixon allowed legally-married same-sex couples in the state to file joint tax returns in order to keep the state consistent with the IRS's post-Defense of Marriage Act policies. Second, Republicans argue Nixon took too long to call a special election to replace legislative vacancies. Third, Republicans believe that Nixon didn't punish state officials enough over a controversy involving concealed carry permits.

So, will Nixon get impeached? It's unlikely. Republicans control both the state's House and Senate, but as the Washington Post notes, the bills probably won't make it to a final vote in both houses of the legislature. Even if they did, the state constitution outlines that the governor can't actually be removed from office unless five of seven state judges convict him.

In other words, the impeachment proceedings are likely more of an opportunity for a handful of Republican legislators to make a point than they are a serious threat to Nixon's office. The legislative ring leader of the pro-impeachment representatives is state Rep. Nick Marshall, who promised to begin proceedings in November:

 

[benjipwns]

Fourth, they thought he was involved in the Watergate break-in.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I wonder if Obama will call Nixon or McAuliffe and just say "now you know how it feels." Dealing with obsessive obstructionism.

Especially McAuliffe, because I can just imagine him palling around with Clintonistas criticizing Obama for not being able to get x done with republicans.

 

[East Lake]

Why would it make the IRS more apprehensive of enforcing federal law?* The problem isn't that they enforced the law, but that they abused their enforcement power--and in a nakedly partisan manner.

I think you mean they flagged what they thought might violate its laws and at most were inept at dealing with the workload. That you buy a conspiracy manufactured by a congressman who should have done jail time is a problem.

In fact, following the scandal, the Treasury Dept. proposed even more stringent regulations governing 501(c)(4) organizations. Clearly they're not apprehensive about enforcement.

Clearly you haven't justified this. I don't mean to say you thought this, but proposing regulations does not mean that they have been enacted or even have a chance to. Even if they were you haven't made the distinction between the old law and the new stringent law.

 

[kehs]

Hannity just got demolished by Stewart.

Wow.

 

[AntoneM]

Why would it make the IRS more apprehensive of enforcing federal law?* The problem isn't that they enforced the law, but that they abused their enforcement power--and in a nakedly partisan manner.

In fact, following the scandal, the Treasury Dept. proposed even more stringent regulations governing 501(c)(4) organizations. Clearly they're not apprehensive about enforcement.

*I'm saying "federal" law, rather than "its" laws because some people actually believe that the Internal Revenue Code is created by the IRS. It isn't--it's enacted by Congress and signed by the president, same as all federal statutes. I don't think you thought this, but I just wanted to be clear.

You do know that unlike a 501c3 organization a 591c4 IS NOT REQUIRED TO FILE AN APPLICATION FOR RECOGNITION OF EXEMPTION. The IRS was not on a witch hunt out to get conservative organizations.

 

[Metaphoreus]

I think you mean they flagged what they thought might violate its laws and at most were inept at dealing with the workload. That you buy a conspiracy manufactured by a congressman who should have done jail time is a problem.

I don't care what Issa says, and I certainly don't see how his criminal record is relevant to this discussion. Maybe this discussion would be more productive if you didn't assume I was incapable of thinking for myself.

Clearly you haven't justified this. I don't mean to say you thought this, but proposing regulations does not mean that they have been enacted or even have a chance to. Even if they were you haven't made the distinction between the old law and the new stringent law.

I'm not sure what you're asking for here.

You do know that unlike a 501c3 organization a 591c4 IS NOT REQUIRED TO FILE AN APPLICATION FOR RECOGNITION OF EXEMPTION. The IRS was not on a witch hunt out to get conservative organizations.

Are you... screaming at me? Is that what I'm supposed to take from this?

That 501(c)(4)'s don't have to be preapproved by the IRS before beginning operations doesn't excuse the IRS for targeting those conservative groups that did apply.

 

[speculawyer]

Hannity just got demolished by Stewart.

Wow.

No one deserves it more than Hannity.

 

[B-Dubs]

I don't care what Issa says, and I certainly don't see how his criminal record is relevant to this discussion. Maybe this discussion would be more productive if you didn't assume I was incapable of thinking for myself.



I'm not sure what you're asking for here.



Are you... screaming at me? Is that what I'm supposed to take from this?

That 501(c)(4)'s don't have to be preapproved by the IRS before beginning operations doesn't excuse the IRS for targeting those conservative groups that did apply.

They didn't just target conservative groups though, they also targeted liberal ones. We learned this back when this whole thing first cropped up.

 

[Metaphoreus]

They didn't just target conservative groups though, they also targeted liberal ones. We learned this back when this whole thing first cropped up.

To what information are you referring? There were a couple of things we learned early on that could match this description.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Fourth, they thought he was involved in the Watergate break-in.

I laughed

 

[GaimeGuy]

EDIT: Also, this is Post # 100 for me in this thread, which means I've now posted more than Cyan, and am number 18 in overall posts in this thread. Face it, I'm one of you now.

HOORAY \o/

 

[Owzers]

Hannity just got demolished by Stewart.

Wow.

I saw, it was fun. I'm sure Hannity's rebuttal will be taking the pledge of allegiance and then calling Stewart a communist. He has nothing.

 

[Oblivion]

You know, I'm not the biggest fan of Arby's but comparing them to Sean Hannity? That's going too far.

 

[KingK]

I still don't know what the Daily Show has against Arby's lol. I love their roast beef sandwiches and cheddar melts.