Dubya's 47 Czars.

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Bullshit, you obviously can't read.

Sorry, I can. And I can read between the lines better.

You people are hypocrites, that's all there is to it.

Go back and point to where I was a hypocrite.

Seriously guys?!?!?

 

[Zoom-boing]

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?

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

Geesh, how many times must we say this?

And --- WHO THE **** 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.

 

[Ravi]

Here we go again with the "Appeal to Mom" fallacy.

"Appeal to Mom" is one of the fallacies of logic, falling under the "bandwagon" category of logical fallacies. It goes like this:

Kid #1 and/or his friends are in trouble with Mom. Kid #1 appeals to Mom with, "But MOM, the other kid did it too!" and promptly earns himself a rap in the mouth.

It's never worked, even on Mom, and most intelligent, mature people give up this logical fallacy around age eight.

Because it's not about the "other kids."

Folks who employ this infantile fallacy of logic when it's to defend Obama fail to realize that in doing so, they completely undermine the "change" mantra. There was supposed to be change, therefore there shouldn't BE any valid comparisons to Bush or anything Bush ever said or did. Otherwise, it's more of the same instead of change.

"See? Booooosh did it too" is a classic example of the "Appeal to Mom" fallacy.

DO you understand? Booooosh isn't President anymore, Obama is. And if your defense of Obama is "Bush did it too" then, you're actually making an argument AGAINST Obama.

Clear?

Probably not.

Good spin, MM. I've no problem with either of them having so called czars, Presidents may hire whomever they see fit.

And up until this point not one of you rightwing loons have complained that your objections to the czars are because Obama promised change.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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?

C'mon VaYank5150, I know you have a better head on your shoulders than to start throwing accusations of racism around.

You're smart enough not to use these dishonest tactics and still make your points.

 

[Fatality]

Sorry, I can. And I can read between the lines better.

You people are hypocrites, that's all there is to it.

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?

communists, eugenisists, lawyers for rats?

 

[VaYank5150]

DO you understand? Booooosh isn't President anymore, Obama is. And if your defense of Obama is "Bush did it too" then, you're actually making an argument AGAINST Obama.

Unfortunately, people like you are simply too stupid to understand the message. Bush was a **** up and I could care less about what he did or didn't do at this point. It's the Obama haters that need to STFU about all of the things they are suddenly CRAZED about, which were perfectly fine with them while BOOOOOSH was in the WH. It's called hypocrisy, dumbass. Buy a clue, already.

 

[midcan5]

There are some interesting comparisons here. Bush's czars were all as incompetent as he was, so he could have had a thousand czars, and they still would not have been to solve a single issue. That they proved repeatedly.

I love the conservative wingnut republican replies, they all suffer a sort of dyslexia in which the positive, which moves the nation forward, is seen as communist or socialist, they need treatment but lobotomies can't be performed on wingnuts missing the essential piece.

"Why Conservatives Can't Govern" by Alan Wolfe

 

[xsited1]

Here, for your reference, are the 47 czars during the Bush Administration:

...

The Democratic Party

It almost sounds like they're trying to justify Obama's Czars by saying, "Look, Bush did it!" Is that true?

Check this out. It looks like even some Democrats are against them.

Byrd: White House 'Czars' Are Unconstitutional | Drudge Retort

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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?

communists, eugenisists, lawyers for rats?

you forgot tax cheats and tax evaders.

 

[VaYank5150]

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?

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

Geesh, how many times must we say this?

And --- WHO THE **** 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?

 

[Zoom-boing]

Sorry, I can. And I can read between the lines better.

You people are hypocrites, that's all there is to it.

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.

 

[Fatality]

DO you understand? Booooosh isn't President anymore, Obama is. And if your defense of Obama is "Bush did it too" then, you're actually making an argument AGAINST Obama.

Unfortunately, people like you are simply too stupid to understand the message. Bush was a **** up and I could care less about what he did or didn't do at this point. It's the Obama haters that need to STFU about all of the things they are suddenly CRAZED about, which were perfectly fine with them while BOOOOOSH was in the WH. It's called hypocrisy, dumbass. Buy a clue, already.

communists, eugenisists, racists, lawyers for rats?

 

[VaYank5150]

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?

C'mon VaYank5150, I know you have a better head on your shoulders than to start throwing accusations of racism around.

You're smart enough not to use these dishonest tactics and still make your points.

PLYMCO, you and I have debated before. I should NOT have to draw you pictures. You are smarter than that. Come on...

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Here we go again with the "Appeal to Mom" fallacy.

"Appeal to Mom" is one of the fallacies of logic, falling under the "bandwagon" category of logical fallacies. It goes like this:

Kid #1 and/or his friends are in trouble with Mom. Kid #1 appeals to Mom with, "But MOM, the other kid did it too!" and promptly earns himself a rap in the mouth.

It's never worked, even on Mom, and most intelligent, mature people give up this logical fallacy around age eight.

Because it's not about the "other kids."

Folks who employ this infantile fallacy of logic when it's to defend Obama fail to realize that in doing so, they completely undermine the "change" mantra. There was supposed to be change, therefore there shouldn't BE any valid comparisons to Bush or anything Bush ever said or did. Otherwise, it's more of the same instead of change.

"See? Booooosh did it too" is a classic example of the "Appeal to Mom" fallacy.

DO you understand? Booooosh isn't President anymore, Obama is. And if your defense of Obama is "Bush did it too" then, you're actually making an argument AGAINST Obama.

Clear?

Probably not.

Good spin, MM. I've no problem with either of them having so called czars, Presidents may hire whomever they see fit.

And up until this point not one of you rightwing loons have complained that your objections to the czars are because Obama promised change.

It's not "spin" it's just truth, which I know is anathema to you.

And again, I am not a right winger. You don't keep up with the scorecard around here very well, which further demonstrates your intellectual sloppiness and dishonesty.

I haven't complained about Obama's Czars at all. I am merely pointing out the infantile faulty argument the Dems make, faithfully regurgitated by the mindless puppet/parrot OP.

 

[txlonghorn]

That's a big list...of course, many of them served the same position. Those listed that had several different appointments at different times over 8 years and the 18 "other" czars comes to 29. And a few of the "others" were temporary appointments. Such as the Gulf Coast Reconstruction Czar and the Bird Flu Czar. What I didn't see in the Bush list were czars like Car Czar, Urban Affairs Czar, Guantanamo Closure Czar, Pay Czar or czars appointed directly to handle liason duties to specific countries where we have domestic concerns. Why not ONE to handle the middle east peace and policy? Instead there's one for Afghanistan and one for Sudan. Then theres a Mid East Peace Czar and a Mid East Policy Czar. And then there's my favorite....the WMD czar...which is quite curious seeing as how EVERY democrat alive swears up and down that there are NO WMD's!!! Apparently there are some somewhere.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

DO you understand? Booooosh isn't President anymore, Obama is. And if your defense of Obama is "Bush did it too" then, you're actually making an argument AGAINST Obama.

Unfortunately, people like you are simply too stupid to understand the message. Bush was a **** up and I could care less about what he did or didn't do at this point. It's the Obama haters that need to STFU about all of the things they are suddenly CRAZED about, which were perfectly fine with them while BOOOOOSH was in the WH. It's called hypocrisy, dumbass. Buy a clue, already.

This is "appeal to ad hom" which is another fallacy. Because you don't KNOW what people complained about regarding Boooosh, you merely ASSume.

Because you are an intellectually bereft, sloppy, lazy partisan hack.

 

[Ravi]

DO you understand? Booooosh isn't President anymore, Obama is. And if your defense of Obama is "Bush did it too" then, you're actually making an argument AGAINST Obama.

Unfortunately, people like you are simply too stupid to understand the message. Bush was a **** up and I could care less about what he did or didn't do at this point. It's the Obama haters that need to STFU about all of the things they are suddenly CRAZED about, which were perfectly fine with them while BOOOOOSH was in the WH. It's called hypocrisy, dumbass. Buy a clue, already.

This is "appeal to ad hom" which is another fallacy. Because you don't KNOW what people complained about regarding Boooosh, you merely ASSume.

Because you are an intellectually bereft, sloppy, lazy partisan hack.

Your logically fallacies need a brush up.

Of course we know what people complained about regarding Bush, almost nothing at all. None of us are new to message boarding.

Oh wait, you're going to tell me you whispered these complaints in the bathroom at the local bar.

 

[Zoom-boing]

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 **** 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?

I never knew czars existed until I heard about them w/this president. Was I living in a cave? Perhaps, as I was raising a special needs child and didn't pay attention to anything political until about a year ago. You want to call me a hypocrite because I was unaware? Go ahead but it falls flat. As I stated in my previous posts, had Bush's czars been shown to be communists/racists/radicals I've have screamed just as loudly (had I been paying attention).

But you continue to avoid the issue -- we're opposed to Obama's czars NOT because Obama has them, NOT because Obama is black, NOT because we're hypocrites but because Obama has chosen czars that are self-avowed communists/racists/radicals. THAT'S the issue.

 

[xotoxi]

The difference is that Bush's czars did not have the authority to execute citizens and claim their property for the Government.

 

[Oddball]

Of course we know what people complained about regarding Bush, almost nothing at all. None of us are new to message boarding.

Oh wait, you're going to tell me you whispered these complaints in the bathroom at the local bar.

No he didn't....He aired them in public, as did myself a whoooole lotta other folx.

But a couple of the outstanding traits of intellectually bereft, sloppy, lazy partisan hacks are their tin ears and short-term memories.