Dubya's 47 Czars.

[Care4all]

Do YOU even KNOW if Bush's Czars were not communist , fascist, radicals, unqualified, idiots, not vetted... etc?

Not to be simple here...but honestly, DID YOU EVEN CARE who Bush's czars were and how inefficient or incapable or stupid and unqualified they really were for their positions?

The truth of the matter is that NO ONE or near NO ONE cared about who Bush put in as his czars from the RIGHT....you all just ACCEPTED THEM without giving them the scrutiny that you are giving the Obama czars...

Not to diminish this concern now of actually opening your eyes and questioning things but it appears to me:

THIS IS ALL POLITICS I'm sad to say....and YOU SHOULD see this when you examine yourselves and ask yourselves whether you had this much concern and scrutiny given, for the Bush Czars that he appointed....your Strings are being pulled...maybe you don't realize it, but they are....

For the MOST PART i see this as Bull Crud....as with all the other Crying Wolf that has been going on and shows hypocrisy to the enth degree.

Is it against the law to have a communistic or socialistic or capitalistic view on things? Is this still the McCarthy paranoia days?

Just way toooooo much background noise from the right imo, and THIS WILL COME BACK to bite you...because the actual threat when and if it comes, will not be heard through the background noise.

Pick and choose wisely your battles or they all become 'background chatter" that is not heard...that's my advice! But ...carry on all and do your thing....

IF YOU REALLY CARED about all of this you would ACCEPT what you did previously was WRONG and hypocritical and just say,

"you are right, I did not pay attention under the Bush reign to these kind of things because he was a Republican and I trusted him with his picks, just as you all trust obama with his picks because he is a Democrat. I am being a hypocrite over this now because i did ignore the Bush Czars, BUT DOES 2 WRONGS MAKE IT RIGHT? Should I continue to ignore the things that now stand out to me because my eyes are finally opened just because I was comfortably snoozing earlier, under President Bush?"

And then the debate could continue from there....

But I suppose I live in my own little wishful fantasy world, where everyone can debate and argue honestly and fairly....

Care

Well, here's your chance to argue HONESTLY...

WHY DIDN'T THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA REPORT ON BUSH'S APPOINTMENTS????

Maybe it's because there wasn't much to report. Are you REALLY going to blame their lack of coverage on the public? We would have probably NEVER known about all the czars that have been around for years, if it hadn't been for the scandalous activities of several of Obama's appointees.

I don't know why all the Anti Bush news agencies didn't cover the czar appointments made by Bush. Maybe it was because they were too busy making up false reports about Bush's military record. Maybe they were too occupied with finding as many negative stories they could about the war in Iraq.

Any ideas?

longhorn...your timing is off...

there was no iraq war(that was 2003), it was before 9/11/2001 when Bush picked most of his czars...the news consortium had come out already in march of 2001 all saying Bush won the election...at least in the recounts this consortium of news papers did.... so, I don't think those things can be used as excuses....as to why they did not cover it back then....

But, my post had nothing to do with the media, in any way...so how did this even get in to the conversation with a response to my post Tex?

Care

 

[txlonghorn]

We both are smarter than that so dont use racism as an argument when you know its not about race

I wasn't trying to use racism as an argument. I was TRYING to point out that others already are. IF the Obama dissenters continue to bash Obama for things that were never in the headlines when Bush was POTUS, then people will draw their own conclusions as to WHY these issues are suddenly headlines. See my point, yet?

In the words of Joe Wilson....YOU LIE!
What the hell does race have to do with this statement -

IF the Obama dissenters continue to bash Obama for things that were never in the headlines when Bush was POTUS, then people will draw their own conclusions as to WHY these issues are suddenly headlines.

Com'on Yank!!! You can do better than this!!! Are you saying that if things weren't brought up in the Bush years, that they can't be brought up now?????

You're the one failing to see the point. Which, for a lack fo a better term, is very black and white...sorry, I couldn't resist. Why not ask yourself why the mainstream media, who was SO rabid toward "W", didn't come out with some big time story about his czar appointments? If FOX can get it out there, why can't CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC....oh yeah...and UNIVISION...Ole'!!! You've all said what a joke FOX is, but seemingly, you're own news sources can't seem to get the story or hold an audience.

You're statement also suggests that all opposition to Obama (i.e. bashing) is racially motivated. Which is just bullshit. I figured you to be brighter than Jimmy Carter.

 

[txlonghorn]

Do YOU even KNOW if Bush's Czars were not communist , fascist, radicals, unqualified, idiots, not vetted... etc?

Not to be simple here...but honestly, DID YOU EVEN CARE who Bush's czars were and how inefficient or incapable or stupid and unqualified they really were for their positions?

The truth of the matter is that NO ONE or near NO ONE cared about who Bush put in as his czars from the RIGHT....you all just ACCEPTED THEM without giving them the scrutiny that you are giving the Obama czars...

Not to diminish this concern now of actually opening your eyes and questioning things but it appears to me:

THIS IS ALL POLITICS I'm sad to say....and YOU SHOULD see this when you examine yourselves and ask yourselves whether you had this much concern and scrutiny given, for the Bush Czars that he appointed....your Strings are being pulled...maybe you don't realize it, but they are....

For the MOST PART i see this as Bull Crud....as with all the other Crying Wolf that has been going on and shows hypocrisy to the enth degree.

Is it against the law to have a communistic or socialistic or capitalistic view on things? Is this still the McCarthy paranoia days?

Just way toooooo much background noise from the right imo, and THIS WILL COME BACK to bite you...because the actual threat when and if it comes, will not be heard through the background noise.

Pick and choose wisely your battles or they all become 'background chatter" that is not heard...that's my advice! But ...carry on all and do your thing....

IF YOU REALLY CARED about all of this you would ACCEPT what you did previously was WRONG and hypocritical and just say,

"you are right, I did not pay attention under the Bush reign to these kind of things because he was a Republican and I trusted him with his picks, just as you all trust obama with his picks because he is a Democrat. I am being a hypocrite over this now because i did ignore the Bush Czars, BUT DOES 2 WRONGS MAKE IT RIGHT? Should I continue to ignore the things that now stand out to me because my eyes are finally opened just because I was comfortably snoozing earlier, under President Bush?"

And then the debate could continue from there....

But I suppose I live in my own little wishful fantasy world, where everyone can debate and argue honestly and fairly....

Care

Well, here's your chance to argue HONESTLY...

WHY DIDN'T THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA REPORT ON BUSH'S APPOINTMENTS????

Maybe it's because there wasn't much to report. Are you REALLY going to blame their lack of coverage on the public? We would have probably NEVER known about all the czars that have been around for years, if it hadn't been for the scandalous activities of several of Obama's appointees.

I don't know why all the Anti Bush news agencies didn't cover the czar appointments made by Bush. Maybe it was because they were too busy making up false reports about Bush's military record. Maybe they were too occupied with finding as many negative stories they could about the war in Iraq.

Any ideas?

longhorn...your timing is off...

there was no iraq war(that was 2003), it was before 9/11/2001 when Bush picked most of his czars...the news consortium had come out already in march of 2001 all saying Bush won the election...at least in the recounts this consortium of news papers did.... so, I don't think those things can be used as excuses....as to why they did not cover it back then....

But, my post had nothing to do with the media, in any way...so how did this even get in to the conversation with a response to my post Tex?

Care

Thanks for the history lesson, but, Pres Bush appointed czars throughout both terms. Not sure why the media wouldn't have anything to do with your post...seeing as how so many people are crying about the questions about Obama's appointments. And most of this information has come mostly from FOX. Whether you meant for it to include the media or not, the entire subject involves the media.

 

[VaYank5150]

We both are smarter than that so dont use racism as an argument when you know its not about race

I wasn't trying to use racism as an argument. I was TRYING to point out that others already are. IF the Obama dissenters continue to bash Obama for things that were never in the headlines when Bush was POTUS, then people will draw their own conclusions as to WHY these issues are suddenly headlines. See my point, yet?

In the words of Joe Wilson....YOU LIE!
What the hell does race have to do with this statement -

IF the Obama dissenters continue to bash Obama for things that were never in the headlines when Bush was POTUS, then people will draw their own conclusions as to WHY these issues are suddenly headlines.

Com'on Yank!!! You can do better than this!!! Are you saying that if things weren't brought up in the Bush years, that they can't be brought up now?????

You're the one failing to see the point. Which, for a lack fo a better term, is very black and white...sorry, I couldn't resist. Why not ask yourself why the mainstream media, who was SO rabid toward "W", didn't come out with some big time story about his czar appointments? If FOX can get it out there, why can't CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC....oh yeah...and UNIVISION...Ole'!!! You've all said what a joke FOX is, but seemingly, you're own news sources can't seem to get the story or hold an audience.

You're statement also suggests that all opposition to Obama (i.e. bashing) is racially motivated. Which is just bullshit. I figured you to be brighter than Jimmy Carter.

I'm not saying they can't be brought up (as if anyone would listen to me anyway). I am simply trying to figure out why the issue of Czars is such a problem for some now, when to my knowledge, no one seemed to care about these unofficial positions in the past. AND, since most of the "concern" seems to be coming from the right, it just looks fishy....

 

[obama2ndterm]

Whenever a democratic President is popular the extremest right rises up and stomps and cries about everything. And if he is half black, well that makes it worse.Past Presidents would
never have been scrutinized like Obama has. Name one?

 

[Care4all]

Whenever a democratic President is popular the extremest right rises up and stomps and cries about everything. And if he is half black, well that makes it worse.Past Presidents would
never have been scrutinized like Obama has. Name one?

Clinton.

also, if you read way back in American History...it was gawd awful back then too!!!!!

 

[Care4all]

Well, here's your chance to argue HONESTLY...

WHY DIDN'T THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA REPORT ON BUSH'S APPOINTMENTS????

Maybe it's because there wasn't much to report. Are you REALLY going to blame their lack of coverage on the public? We would have probably NEVER known about all the czars that have been around for years, if it hadn't been for the scandalous activities of several of Obama's appointees.

I don't know why all the Anti Bush news agencies didn't cover the czar appointments made by Bush. Maybe it was because they were too busy making up false reports about Bush's military record. Maybe they were too occupied with finding as many negative stories they could about the war in Iraq.

Any ideas?

longhorn...your timing is off...

there was no iraq war(that was 2003), it was before 9/11/2001 when Bush picked most of his czars...the news consortium had come out already in march of 2001 all saying Bush won the election...at least in the recounts this consortium of news papers did.... so, I don't think those things can be used as excuses....as to why they did not cover it back then....

But, my post had nothing to do with the media, in any way...so how did this even get in to the conversation with a response to my post Tex?

Care

Thanks for the history lesson, but, Pres Bush appointed czars throughout both terms. Not sure why the media wouldn't have anything to do with your post...seeing as how so many people are crying about the questions about Obama's appointments. And most of this information has come mostly from FOX. Whether you meant for it to include the media or not, the entire subject involves the media.

Well, YOU might think that tex, but i think it just SKIRTS around my post...and puts the blame again, on something or someone else, instead of truly evaluating oneself and how, our own strings are being pulled in one direction or the other, by someone else, because we LET THEM....yes, we let them.....

The Buck should STOP with ourselves.

Care

 

[Oddball]

Whenever a democratic President is popular the extremest right rises up and stomps and cries about everything. And if he is half black, well that makes it worse.Past Presidents would
never have been scrutinized like Obama has. Name one?

Nixon...Do I win a cookie or something?

 

[VaYank5150]

Whenever a democratic President is popular the extremest right rises up and stomps and cries about everything. And if he is half black, well that makes it worse.Past Presidents would
never have been scrutinized like Obama has. Name one?

Nixon...Do I win a cookie or something?

I usually can't stand your callous remarks, but that one was funny right there. I don't care who you are.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

We both are smarter than that so dont use racism as an argument when you know its not about race . Notice I didn't give you crap about what you said other than that .


ON A SIDE NOTE:

So how does the fact that Bush did something make it ok for someone else to do it?

Are you're problems(by you're I mean those saying bush had czars) the fact that people are questioning obama or is it that you view it as the people questioning obama were supporting bush doing it.

Personally I never heard anyone in the Media bring up Bush's Czars over his 8 years, but if they did I would have taken issue with the czars if they were not vetted by congress or if they held anti-american opinions, or if they were tax cheats, or if they were self avowed communists, or if they wanted to create a "Christian Only" state, or if they were racist, ect ect ect.

.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to PLYMCO_PILGRIM again.

You can try again now

Well, here's your chance to argue HONESTLY...

WHY DIDN'T THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA REPORT ON BUSH'S APPOINTMENTS????

Maybe it's because there wasn't much to report. Are you REALLY going to blame their lack of coverage on the public? We would have probably NEVER known about all the czars that have been around for years, if it hadn't been for the scandalous activities of several of Obama's appointees.

I don't know why all the Anti Bush news agencies didn't cover the czar appointments made by Bush. Maybe it was because they were too busy making up false reports about Bush's military record. Maybe they were too occupied with finding as many negative stories they could about the war in Iraq.

Any ideas?

Exactly....i figured with all the media frenzy over finding things to attack bush on they would have went after any crazy czars/advisor just like Beck went after Van Jones.

Maybe they did and I missed it, i'm open to read a link of the media reporting on one of bush's czars having crazy ideas like beck did to Van Jones.

 

[Sinatra]

Were Bushie's czars self-avowed communists, radicals, racists?

Were they all vetted/confirmed? If not, they should have been or they should have been tossed.

Are czars allowed by the constitution?

If so, they should all be vetted and confirmed. How many of Obama's are? I thought I heard only a small fraction - something around 10 or so?

Are the one's that are vetted/confirmed the czars or the one's who aren't vetted/confirmed the czars? I still don't know the answer to that.

How much power and influence do czars really have?

Did Beck ever say anything about Bush's czars when Bush was president? I have no clue, do you? Does he mention Bush's czars now? He did yesterday, saying he had 47. I don't know if Beck is opposed to the czars, per sey, but he is opposed to the radicals that Obama has surrounded himself with and many of Obama's czars are radicals.

BECK did not mention that Bush had 47 Cazrs. His guest did. Beck is a simpleton hypocrite.

Perhaps- but that simpleton hypocrite appears to be shaking the White House tree and sending the vermin scrambling to react. Van Jones let go. Acorn defunded.

Guess the White House and the Democrat Congress agree with that simpleton hypocrite as well...

 

[VaYank5150]

We both are smarter than that so dont use racism as an argument when you know its not about race . Notice I didn't give you crap about what you said other than that .


ON A SIDE NOTE:

So how does the fact that Bush did something make it ok for someone else to do it?

Are you're problems(by you're I mean those saying bush had czars) the fact that people are questioning obama or is it that you view it as the people questioning obama were supporting bush doing it.

Personally I never heard anyone in the Media bring up Bush's Czars over his 8 years, but if they did I would have taken issue with the czars if they were not vetted by congress or if they held anti-american opinions, or if they were tax cheats, or if they were self avowed communists, or if they wanted to create a "Christian Only" state, or if they were racist, ect ect ect.

.

You can try again now

Well, here's your chance to argue HONESTLY...

WHY DIDN'T THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA REPORT ON BUSH'S APPOINTMENTS????

Maybe it's because there wasn't much to report. Are you REALLY going to blame their lack of coverage on the public? We would have probably NEVER known about all the czars that have been around for years, if it hadn't been for the scandalous activities of several of Obama's appointees.

I don't know why all the Anti Bush news agencies didn't cover the czar appointments made by Bush. Maybe it was because they were too busy making up false reports about Bush's military record. Maybe they were too occupied with finding as many negative stories they could about the war in Iraq.

Any ideas?

Exactly....i figured with all the media frenzy over finding things to attack bush on they would have went after any crazy czars/advisor just like Beck went after Van Jones.

Maybe they did and I missed it, i'm open to read a link of the media reporting on one of bush's czars having crazy ideas like beck did to Van Jones.

Good luck with that.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

.

You can try again now

Well, here's your chance to argue HONESTLY...

WHY DIDN'T THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA REPORT ON BUSH'S APPOINTMENTS????

Maybe it's because there wasn't much to report. Are you REALLY going to blame their lack of coverage on the public? We would have probably NEVER known about all the czars that have been around for years, if it hadn't been for the scandalous activities of several of Obama's appointees.

I don't know why all the Anti Bush news agencies didn't cover the czar appointments made by Bush. Maybe it was because they were too busy making up false reports about Bush's military record. Maybe they were too occupied with finding as many negative stories they could about the war in Iraq.

Any ideas?

Exactly....i figured with all the media frenzy over finding things to attack bush on they would have went after any crazy czars/advisor just like Beck went after Van Jones.

Maybe they did and I missed it, i'm open to read a link of the media reporting on one of bush's czars having crazy ideas like beck did to Van Jones.

Good luck with that.

Why you dont think the media ever brought up bush's czars either?

 

[VaYank5150]

You can try again now



Exactly....i figured with all the media frenzy over finding things to attack bush on they would have went after any crazy czars/advisor just like Beck went after Van Jones.

Maybe they did and I missed it, i'm open to read a link of the media reporting on one of bush's czars having crazy ideas like beck did to Van Jones.

Good luck with that.

Why you dont think the media ever brought up bush's czars either?

My memory is not what it once was, but I do not recall Czars being questioned during the entire 8 years Dubya occupied the WH.

 

[STEEL]

If czars are allowed they should ALL be vetted and confirmed, none of this 'appointed by the president' crap. And that goes for whoever is president, not just Obama. I don't trust the government as far as I can spit.

So, WHY is everyone up in arms about czars NOW? Is it because they are Obama's Czars? Is it because Obama is black? How many of Bush's Czars were confirmed. Do you know ANYTHING about his 47 Czars? Why was this NOT news before Obama? Do you see how you guys look?

Yes. It must be because he's black.

That's the only thing that makes sense.

 

[k2skier]

Go back and point to where I was a hypocrite.

How about the part where you want to know the answers to all of the questions you NEVER asked when Bush was POTUS?

Can you not grasp the information being presented here? People are objecting to Obama's czars because they are communists/radicals/racists. I don't know if Bush's czars were also communists/racists/radicals but if they were I'd have been yelling just as loudly.

communists, LOL!!! clueless dolt...find a different channel to listen to, it's getting old...bush was far more like a commuinist than bho will ever be, jeeez

 

[k2skier]

I wasn't trying to use racism as an argument. I was TRYING to point out that others already are. IF the Obama dissenters continue to bash Obama for things that were never in the headlines when Bush was POTUS, then people will draw their own conclusions as to WHY these issues are suddenly headlines. See my point, yet?

In the words of Joe Wilson....YOU LIE!
What the hell does race have to do with this statement -

IF the Obama dissenters continue to bash Obama for things that were never in the headlines when Bush was POTUS, then people will draw their own conclusions as to WHY these issues are suddenly headlines.

Com'on Yank!!! You can do better than this!!! Are you saying that if things weren't brought up in the Bush years, that they can't be brought up now?????

You're the one failing to see the point. Which, for a lack fo a better term, is very black and white...sorry, I couldn't resist. Why not ask yourself why the mainstream media, who was SO rabid toward "W", didn't come out with some big time story about his czar appointments? If FOX can get it out there, why can't CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC....oh yeah...and UNIVISION...Ole'!!! You've all said what a joke FOX is, but seemingly, you're own news sources can't seem to get the story or hold an audience.

You're statement also suggests that all opposition to Obama (i.e. bashing) is racially motivated. Which is just bullshit. I figured you to be brighter than Jimmy Carter.

I'm not saying they can't be brought up (as if anyone would listen to me anyway). I am simply trying to figure out why the issue of Czars is such a problem for some now, when to my knowledge, no one seemed to care about these unofficial positions in the past. AND, since most of the "concern" seems to be coming from the right, it just looks fishy....

because the communist blathering isn't working at all....

 

[Oddball]

How about the part where you want to know the answers to all of the questions you NEVER asked when Bush was POTUS?

Can you not grasp the information being presented here? People are objecting to Obama's czars because they are communists/radicals/racists. I don't know if Bush's czars were also communists/racists/radicals but if they were I'd have been yelling just as loudly.

communists, LOL!!! clueless dolt...find a different channel to listen to, it's getting old...bush was far more like a commuinist than bho will ever be, jeeez

I get it now....MY communist is less of a communist that YOUR communist!!

Once again, I'm underwhelmed.

 

[STEEL]

Whenever a democratic President is popular the extremest right rises up and stomps and cries about everything. And if he is half black, well that makes it worse.Past Presidents would
never have been scrutinized like Obama has. Name one?

Bill Clinton.

Any more unfounded stupid questions you need me to clear up?

 

[txlonghorn]

Whenever a democratic President is popular the extremest right rises up and stomps and cries about everything. And if he is half black, well that makes it worse.Past Presidents would
never have been scrutinized like Obama has. Name one?

Are you being serious??? Because I'm having a hard time keeping a straight face reading this stuff.

First of all, you lump the entire opposition of Obama into the extremist right wing. That's total bullshit.

Secondly, I'll point out that the only people bringing up race are those who oppose ANY opposition to this president. I could care less whether he's half black, all black, green, purple or yellow with orange spots. Drop the race card. It's make you look racist.

Finally, I'll do better than naming one...I'll give you 3. GWB, Clinton and Nixon. Maybe not as quickly, but they definitely were under the scope.