Dubya's 47 Czars.

[Zoom-boing]

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 must have missed all the media coverage on Bush's communist czars and how he chose his friends carefully, aligning himself with radicals and ooo, those darn marxist professors . . . and Bush's marxist preacher man ... must have missed that too . . . and . . . .oh, what's the point.

 

[VaYank5150]

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 must have missed all the media coverage on Bush's communist czars and how he chose his friends carefully, aligning himself with radicals and ooo, those darn marxist professors . . . and Bush's marxist preacher man ... must have missed that too . . . and . . . .oh, what's the point.

Don't feel bad. EVERYONE missed ANY coverage of ANY of his Czars, as there was NONE.

 

[Zoom-boing]

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 must have missed all the media coverage on Bush's communist czars and how he chose his friends carefully, aligning himself with radicals and ooo, those darn marxist professors . . . and Bush's marxist preacher man ... must have missed that too . . . and . . . .oh, what's the point.

Don't feel bad. EVERYONE missed ANY coverage of ANY of his Czars, as there was NONE.

Why not? btw, you did catch my sarcasm in my previous post, yes?

 

[Vanquish]

I skipped to the end, so forgive me if you've actually followed the logic train I'm about to dispense.

1. The use of "czars" is not unconsititutional, nor without historical precedent.

The Constitution (Article 2, Section 2) gives the President the power to nominate and, with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoint officers of the United States. The Constitution also provides that Congress by law may vest the appointment of “inferior Officers” in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments. Presidents also appoint and promote all military officers subject to Senate consent.

The President appoints 1,000 top officials, who bear titles such as secretary, under secretary, deputy secretary, and assistant secretary of the departments.

SO...what Obama has done ISNT unconsitutional. Nor is it without historical precedent.


2. "Bush did it too" is NOT a great defense for Obama's doing it.

That's exactly right. Because if it was bad when Bush did it...it would still be bad when Obama did it.

3. "You didnt argue when Bush did it" is both a good and bad argument

It's a terrible argument if you're addressing the validity of what Obama's doing.
Its a GREAT argument if you're exposing the hypocrisy of the person you're arguing against.

So... to recap...Obama's not doing anything wrong with his use of czars...people who bring up this subject are simply rabblerousing...but saying Bush did it too is only good for exposing hypocrisy, not defending the use of czars.

 

[VaYank5150]

I skipped to the end, so forgive me if you've actually followed the logic train I'm about to dispense.

1. The use of "czars" is not unconsititutional, nor without historical precedent.

The Constitution (Article 2, Section 2) gives the President the power to nominate and, with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoint officers of the United States. The Constitution also provides that Congress by law may vest the appointment of “inferior Officers” in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments. Presidents also appoint and promote all military officers subject to Senate consent.

The President appoints 1,000 top officials, who bear titles such as secretary, under secretary, deputy secretary, and assistant secretary of the departments.

SO...what Obama has done ISNT unconsitutional. Nor is it without historical precedent.


2. "Bush did it too" is NOT a great defense for Obama's doing it.

That's exactly right. Because if it was bad when Bush did it...it would still be bad when Obama did it.

3. "You didnt argue when Bush did it" is both a good and bad argument

It's a terrible argument if you're addressing the validity of what Obama's doing.
Its a GREAT argument if you're exposing the hypocrisy of the person you're arguing against.

So... to recap...Obama's not doing anything wrong with his use of czars...people who bring up this subject are simply rabblerousing...but saying Bush did it too is only good for exposing hypocrisy, not defending the use of czars.

Holy shit! Someone FINALLY got my point. Thank you!

 

[k2skier]

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 must have missed all the media coverage on Bush's communist czars and how he chose his friends carefully, aligning himself with radicals and ooo, those darn marxist professors . . . and Bush's marxist preacher man ... must have missed that too . . . and . . . .oh, what's the point.

My point is BHO is as much of a communist as GWB, NEITHER are...lol, it's fun to listen to neocons, repubs, conservs all whining, save some hate, you'll need to make it last another 87 months

 

[Zoom-boing]

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 must have missed all the media coverage on Bush's communist czars and how he chose his friends carefully, aligning himself with radicals and ooo, those darn marxist professors . . . and Bush's marxist preacher man ... must have missed that too . . . and . . . .oh, what's the point.

My point is BHO is as much of a communist as GWB, NEITHER are...lol, it's fun to listen to neocons, repubs, conservs all whining, save some hate, you'll need to make it last another 87 months

"Bush was far more like a communist than BHO will ever be"

"My point is BHO is as much of a communist as GWB, NEITHER are"

Undecided, are ya?

Note my signature.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I skipped to the end, so forgive me if you've actually followed the logic train I'm about to dispense.

1. The use of "czars" is not unconsititutional, nor without historical precedent.

The Constitution (Article 2, Section 2) gives the President the power to nominate and, with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoint officers of the United States. The Constitution also provides that Congress by law may vest the appointment of “inferior Officers” in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments. Presidents also appoint and promote all military officers subject to Senate consent.

The President appoints 1,000 top officials, who bear titles such as secretary, under secretary, deputy secretary, and assistant secretary of the departments.

SO...what Obama has done ISNT unconsitutional. Nor is it without historical precedent.


2. "Bush did it too" is NOT a great defense for Obama's doing it.

That's exactly right. Because if it was bad when Bush did it...it would still be bad when Obama did it.

3. "You didnt argue when Bush did it" is both a good and bad argument

It's a terrible argument if you're addressing the validity of what Obama's doing.
Its a GREAT argument if you're exposing the hypocrisy of the person you're arguing against.

So... to recap...Obama's not doing anything wrong with his use of czars...people who bring up this subject are simply rabblerousing...but saying Bush did it too is only good for exposing hypocrisy, not defending the use of czars.

REP FOR YOU!!!!!!!!! Awesome post!!!!

 

[Bahaman]

There is no such thing as czars in the us gov!!!! It's a nickname for direstors and asisstant directors!!!

 

[Zoom-boing]

There is no such thing as czars in the us gov!!!! It's a nickname for direstors and asisstant directors!!!

Czars is more fun to say. Plus it adds just the right amount of communist flavor, don't you think?

 

[Modbert]

None of you Republicans on here even knew that Bush had any Czars until Glenn Beck mentioned he had a measly "6" supposedly. However, when I brought up the number he had a couple weeks ago, plenty of you scoffed. Now, with proof thrown in your face, of course you'll defend Bush's Czars to the end.

Why? Because supposedly all of Obama's are communists and socialists? Go down the list and show me how they all are.

This is just more hypocrisy from the right, and especially hypocrisy from Glenn Beck. The one thing he doesn't seem to remember is his actions on his show from over a year ago before he joined Fox News are well documented on the internet.

Also, as none of you even knew who Bush's czars were, how did you not know they weren't corrupt scumbags or Fascists? Oh that's right, you don't. It's because you don't even bother to care, because as long as the person has an (R) next to their name you'll follow like the nice little sheep that so many of you are.

Special note: This doesn't go for all Republicans on here, however, you know who you are.

 

[Fatality]

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

no youre not, youre dodging the issue and acting the liar.

 

[Meister]

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?

BECAUSE OBAMA HAS CHOOSEN CZARS THAT ARE COMMUNISTS/RACISTS/ RADICALS!!!

Geesh, how many times must we say this?

And --- WHO THE FUCK CARES THAT HE'S BLACK??????????? Where did that even come from??????


No, I don't know anything about his 47 czars. Neither do you. If they were self-avowed communists/racists/radicals I'd have screamed just as loudly.

So, WHY don't you know a damn thing about Bush's Czars and yet seem to be so intrigued by Obama's Czars? How many times do I have to point our your hypocrisy before you FINALLY get it?

If there was anything wrong with the Bush's Czars picks...I'm sure the democrats would have been on that like white on Rice (No it's not a reference about Condoleezza). From what you and I know, there were no undesirables at that level.

 

[Meister]

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 think you need to read all the posts to connect the dots. She was talking about "czars", and Van Jones, and him being communist. Might want to read up on other threads to connect the dots with him being one.

 

[k2skier]

I must have missed all the media coverage on Bush's communist czars and how he chose his friends carefully, aligning himself with radicals and ooo, those darn marxist professors . . . and Bush's marxist preacher man ... must have missed that too . . . and . . . .oh, what's the point.

My point is BHO is as much of a communist as GWB, NEITHER are...lol, it's fun to listen to neocons, repubs, conservs all whining, save some hate, you'll need to make it last another 87 months

"Bush was far more like a communist than BHO will ever be"

"My point is BHO is as much of a communist as GWB, NEITHER are"

Undecided, are ya?

Note my signature.

"was more like" try reading with comprehension....I never said he was, damn you angry repubs have a quick fuse when all you do is spew hate...

 

[Modbert]

If there was anything wrong with the Bush's Czars picks...I'm sure the democrats would have been on that like white on Rice (No it's not a reference about Condoleezza). From what you and I know, there were no undesirables at that level.

Right, the same Democrats who voted with Bush until the majority finally had enough of his antics? The same Democrats who voted for the Patriot Act and Iraq War? The same Democrats who basically stood by and did nothing for six years while Bush ran rampant throughout Washington. Those Democrats?

Those Democrats are like Alan Colmes when he was paired with Hannity. Those Democrats are the same people who if they did actually try to help you fix your car for example, would probably end up setting it on fire. As opposed to the Republicans who slow down, laugh at you, flip you off, and then drive off while getting you covered with mud.

 

[Meister]

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?

Good joke, I like it.

 

[Meister]

If there was anything wrong with the Bush's Czars picks...I'm sure the democrats would have been on that like white on Rice (No it's not a reference about Condoleezza). From what you and I know, there were no undesirables at that level.

Right, the same Democrats who voted with Bush until the majority finally had enough of his antics? The same Democrats who voted for the Patriot Act and Iraq War? The same Democrats who basically stood by and did nothing for six years while Bush ran rampant throughout Washington. Those Democrats?

Those Democrats are like Alan Colmes when he was paired with Hannity. Those Democrats are the same people who if they did actually try to help you fix your car for example, would probably end up setting it on fire. As opposed to the Republicans who slow down, laugh at you, flip you off, and then drive off while getting you covered with mud.

Huh? Bush was getting hammered by the democrats ever since he stole the first election, not to mention getting really hammered by the democrats after he stole the second election.

 

[Modbert]

Huh? Bush was getting hammered by the democrats ever since he stole the first election, not to mention getting really hammered by the democrats after he stole the second election.

Hammered? Revisionist history much?

The Democrats in Congress voted with Bush constantly. If they were objecting to it, they really weren't showing it.

Now if you say Democrats as in the people, some of them. However, those are the same people who were laughed at for the first four years. Then once 2005 rolled around, those crazies suddenly didn't seem so crazy.

 

[JFK_USA]

I wonder why partisan hacks like Glenn Beck, et al, have forgotten about all of Duby'a Czars? Can you say "hypocrite"? I knew you could...

The Republicans don't do anything wrong, haven't you watch the Fake news channel?