The "Czar" Debate settled once and for all.

[DiveCon]

Dive, maybe I could be like you and just say you're wrong! However, here is the link:

List of U.S. executive branch czars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of names and all. Plus links and citations.

All of you who think I believe this is okay are wrong. I'm simply saying your outrage during the Bush Administration for this was nonexistent yet it is now wrong since Obama is in office. Show me one to three threads where anyone on this board is speaking out against Bush's Czars. Go ahead.

sorry, but that page has had so many recent edits, that i bet a number of the bush ones are made up bullshit

 

[Modbert]

» Rise of the Czars The Glenn Beck Blog « FOXNews.com

If you're consulting Glenn Beck for accuracy then you should probably get off this site.

 

[Modbert]

sorry, but that page has had so many recent edits, that i bet a number of the bush ones are made up bullshit

Maybe the recent edits because of Obama's Czars? Ever think of that?

I bet you just don't want to admit that he had more Czars. Look at this! You fucking hypocrite that you are. What if Bush does have more Czars though? Where's your outrage Dive, c'mon, show us all like you do with Obama.

 

[WillowTree]

wikkkiiii is it still edited by anyone anytime? I doubt the accuracy.

Prove it, especially since they all include citations. Plus they include all of Obama's pretty accurately. I notice you're not bashing Bush for all of his Czars Willow.

hey DUngDummie. I asked two questions. you want me to prove questions? that why you are a DUngDummie.

 

[WillowTree]

» Rise of the Czars The Glenn Beck Blog « FOXNews.com

If you're consulting Glenn Beck for accuracy then you should probably get off this site.

why? he has to stand by what he posts,, wiki doesn't ..not to mention Beck's list was created way before this controversy arose.. so suck a lemon

 

[Modbert]

why? he has to stand by what he posts,, wiki doesn't ..not to mention Beck's list was created way before this controversy arose.. so suck a lemon

Beck's list would also want to not include the huge number of Bush Czars. Why? Because it would make Beck look bad.

Recently Glenn Beck posted a picture of all Obama's Czars and ended up posting the same picture twice of the same person in the poster. So much for accuracy.

 

[DiveCon]

sorry, but that page has had so many recent edits, that i bet a number of the bush ones are made up bullshit

Maybe the recent edits because of Obama's Czars? Ever think of that?

I bet you just don't want to admit that he had more Czars. Look at this! You fucking hypocrite that you are. What if Bush does have more Czars though? Where's your outrage Dive, c'mon, show us all like you do with Obama.

fuck off punk
i still dont like czars
and if you looked in that graph, some of the posititions they are calling "Bush Czars" was a position CREATED BY CONGRESS
which is the way positions should be created
that is not the same thing

 

[WillowTree]

why? he has to stand by what he posts,, wiki doesn't ..not to mention Beck's list was created way before this controversy arose.. so suck a lemon

Beck's list would also want to not include the huge number of Bush Czars. Why? Because it would make Beck look bad.

Recently Glenn Beck posted a picture of all Obama's Czars and ended up posting the same picture twice of the same person in the poster. So much for accuracy.

no, because he researched it.

 

[WillowTree]

sorry, but that page has had so many recent edits, that i bet a number of the bush ones are made up bullshit

Maybe the recent edits because of Obama's Czars? Ever think of that?

I bet you just don't want to admit that he had more Czars. Look at this! You fucking hypocrite that you are. What if Bush does have more Czars though? Where's your outrage Dive, c'mon, show us all like you do with Obama.

fuck off punk
i still dont like czars
and if you looked in that graph, some of the posititions they are calling "Bush Czars" was a position CREATED BY CONGRESS
which is the way positions should be created
that is not the same thing

don't annoy him with facts Dive.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Another person who missed my entire point of the thread. Where is the outrage that Bush did it? All I see is people being at most apathetic to the fact he had Czars. Yet all I hear is bitching about Obama's czars.

The fact that Bush had more Czars seemed not even known to the majority of people on this board as I've never heard any bitching about his Czars. That, or they didn't care.

The fact that Bush ignored the Constitution isn't lost on anyone here, I don't think. However, Bush isn't the President. Barack Obama is the President and his Czars are unconstitutional. Whether you point that out for partisan reasons or not, it's still true.

Did you complain about it when Bush did it? The other presidents?

I don't know whether I've complained on this board about Bush's Czars, however I oppose any unconstitutional act regardless of political party.

 

[RadiomanATL]

The president can appoint as many as he wants. Who cares. It is not unconstitutional in my view. The president can have as many advisers (which is what a czar essentially is) and give them as much authority as he legally can if he so chooses. Every president realizes that these people when given authority are acting in their name, and the president is taking the risk politically that this person will stick their foot in their mouth and make the administration look like fools. Which is what has happened with good ole Van.

Now, having said all this, Robert your list in the OP is bullshit. If you don't realize the flaw in your argument then I'll be happy to point it out to you.

 

[Modbert]

fuck off punk
i still dont like czars
and if you looked in that graph, some of the posititions they are calling "Bush Czars" was a position CREATED BY CONGRESS
which is the way positions should be created
that is not the same thing

They still fall under the definition of a Czar created by Congress or not. You're still defending Bush and his band of Czars. Making excuses for a man while only further proving that it's all partisan bullshit for you.

I disapprove of both Bush's and Obama's Czars. How about you Bucko? Care to just admit that Bush was wrong to have any? Care to admit the truth of the situation or would you rather just continue to defend him?

 

[RadiomanATL]

Dive, maybe I could be like you and just say you're wrong! However, here is the link:

List of U.S. executive branch czars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of names and all. Plus links and citations.

All of you who think I believe this is okay are wrong. I'm simply saying your outrage during the Bush Administration for this was nonexistent yet it is now wrong since Obama is in office. Show me one to three threads where anyone on this board is speaking out against Bush's Czars. Go ahead.

sorry, but that page has had so many recent edits, that i bet a number of the bush ones are made up bullshit

Who cares if they are made up. It's still a flawed argument. I'm surprised no one else here has caught on yet...

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The president can appoint as many as he wants. Who cares. It is not unconstitutional in my view. The president can have as many advisers (which is what a czar essentially is) and give them as much authority as he legally can if he so chooses. Every president realizes that these people when given authority are acting in their name, and the president is taking the risk politically that this person will stick their foot in their mouth and make the administration look like fools. Which is what has happened with good ole Van.

Now, having said all this, Robert your list in the OP is bullshit. If you don't realize the flaw in your argument then I'll be happy to point it out to you.

Where in the Constitution does it say the President can appoint a Czar?

 

[Sinatra]

The czar debate is settled in so much as Van Jones, a radical self-proclaimed communist was forced to resign.

There may be more resignations to come...

 

[Modbert]

Who cares if they are made up. It's still a flawed argument. I'm surprised no one else here has caught on yet...

Care to share with the rest of us? Not sure how my "argument" is flawed though I'm willing to bet you have misunderstood what my "argument" is.

 

[DiveCon]

Dive, maybe I could be like you and just say you're wrong! However, here is the link:

List of U.S. executive branch czars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of names and all. Plus links and citations.

All of you who think I believe this is okay are wrong. I'm simply saying your outrage during the Bush Administration for this was nonexistent yet it is now wrong since Obama is in office. Show me one to three threads where anyone on this board is speaking out against Bush's Czars. Go ahead.

sorry, but that page has had so many recent edits, that i bet a number of the bush ones are made up bullshit

Who cares if they are made up. It's still a flawed argument. I'm surprised no one else here has caught on yet...

of course its a flawed argument
but that page even list the director of OMB as a "Czar"
WTF???????

 

[RadiomanATL]

The president can appoint as many as he wants. Who cares. It is not unconstitutional in my view. The president can have as many advisers (which is what a czar essentially is) and give them as much authority as he legally can if he so chooses. Every president realizes that these people when given authority are acting in their name, and the president is taking the risk politically that this person will stick their foot in their mouth and make the administration look like fools. Which is what has happened with good ole Van.

Now, having said all this, Robert your list in the OP is bullshit. If you don't realize the flaw in your argument then I'll be happy to point it out to you.

Where in the Constitution does it say the President can appoint a Czar?

Same place where it allows him to appoint a Press Secretary.

 

[Modbert]

Wish Upon a Czar | The American Prospect

Look at this article from 2007. There's many more articles out there if you actually cared to look.

 

[DiveCon]

Who cares if they are made up. It's still a flawed argument. I'm surprised no one else here has caught on yet...

Care to share with the rest of us? Not sure how my "argument" is flawed though I'm willing to bet you have misunderstood what my "argument" is.

your argument is that its ok because BOOOOOSH did it too