Many of those complaining about President Obama’s “unelected and unaccountable czars” seem to have a bad case of amnesia — or at least selective outrage. After all, President Bush had more such “czars” than President Obama supposedly has. Yet during the Bush years, columnist Dick Polman noted, “there was nary a cry about imperial Russia from the president’s congressional cheerleaders, nor from his fans on Fox.”
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- HLP on Open thread 11/23
89 Comments
Ah, the president of hope and change,
Bush did it too!
Well, ya see –
Czars are Russian.
And Russians were communist.
So Obama is a communist.
Forget that the last real Czar pretty much suffered a severe lifestyle change at the hands of proto-Bolshevists.
CONs have turned into connect-the-dots conspiracists who don’t know how to count.
Did you know the most popular download at RosettaStone.com comes from people who want to learn Kenyan?
“Obama” in Kenyan means “great leader.” It really was a plot. Soon you’ll be seeing the E-mail. Greetings. I am the president of the United States and I need your help in transferring the treasury into my personal bank account. — etc.
The big differences are:
– Bush had 20 of his Czars confirmed by the Senate.
– The Crats counted Bushes Czars more than once. i.e. They count the five different Aids Czars (five different people) instead of counting the position.
– Bush had fewer Czar positions over eight years than O’BAMA has in nine months.
Most importantly, Bush didn’t important left wing nutjobs.
“Regular” advises –
“Most importantly, Bush didn’t important left wing nutjobs.”
Yeah.
That’s an important point, “Regular.”
Poor Monkeyhawk attempts to build a strawman so weak that it falls over before he can knock it down.
We right-wing nut jobs aren’e upset by the word ‘czar’, we’re upset by the incredibly under qualified leftys that Obama has found to fill them.
Unable to defend a nutjob like Van Jones they attempt to defend the word ‘Czar’. Even the dumbest libs wont fall for that straw man!
We right-wing nut jobs aren’e upset by the word ‘czar’, we’re upset by the incredibly under qualified leftys that Obama has found to fill them.
————————————-
I suppose you would prefer we go consult Dick Cheney about who should be appointed to be these advisors?
Show me in the Constitution where advisors to the president need to be confirmed.
Under qualified?
AFTER bush and “heck of a job” Brownie?
Stick to herding goats and answering phones for your wife HLP. There is no con President for you to audition for.
“HLP” –
Was “(Heckuva Job) Brownie” confirmed by the Senate?
I suppose you would prefer we go consult Dick Cheney about who should be appointed to be these advisors?
________________________________
LOL!
Of course!
Care to defend the qualifications of Van Jones or are you just going to be snarky the rest of the day?
BlueJay,
Don’t forget that Hank is a climate science expert — because he did some “liason”(sic) duty for scientists, a long time ago. /sarcasm off
Was “(Heckuva Job) Brownie” confirmed by the Senate?
__________________________
Do you intentionally miss the point or are you merely stupid?
Care to defend the qualifications of Van Jones or are you just going to be snarky the rest of the day?
I’m outa here, gotta go feed the goats and answer phones.
http://www.greenforall.org/
So what was your point, “HLP?”
That’s part of being a leftist Libs Hank.
You know never answering a question honestly or truthfully and never looking anyone in the eye.
Duh Libs love diversion and avoidance.
“Regular” gives us –
“You know never answering a question honestly or truthfully and never looking anyone in the eye.”
I think I speak for most of us when I say, “Huh?”
There’s a haiku in there, “Regular.” Somewhere. Keep working on it.
Sproing!
Contras start the personal attacks early today…
I’d defend Van Jones’ qualifications in a New York minute. He gets busted for his political journey and some silly petition, but he is still working his program of creating green jobs…
There were no personal attacks. I didn’t point anyone out.
I said’ duh Libs.
Look at this! An opportunity to argue over whether the Republican presidential advisers (not to be confused with czars!) are more or less qualified than Democratic czars (not to be confused with presidential advisers!). For the sake of arguments, these terms — czars and presidential advisers — must be separate!
Let me take a guess that there will be much trolling for arguments, baited lines will be posted, some will take the bait and arguments will ensue. Once successful in getting the arguments going, most of the posts will be personal slams and criticisms of fellow bloggers. Opposing opinions will include taking a swipe at the blogger whose opinion is different.
Someone must be wrong!
It will be impossible for most bloggers to accept differences of opinions. Compromise is entirely out of the question because that might bring understanding or even respectful adult conversations.
I think all are human therefore have a mixture of strengths and weaknesses, some have proven more effective and qualified than others, without regard for political persuasions.
“We right-wing nut jobs”
There Hank, fixed it for ya by leaving in the part of the post you got right.
Sproing!
Sproing!
Monkeyhawk: Was “(Heckuva Job) Brownie” confirmed by the Senate?
__________________________
“Do you intentionally miss the point or are you merely stupid?”
You mean this point? “We right-wing nut jobs aren’e upset by the word ‘czar’, we’re upset by the incredibly under qualified leftys that Obama has found to fill them.”
Monkeyhawk’s point, on the other hand, was to point out of Brown as a prime example of someone appointed by the previous administration who had no real qualifications for the post he was appointed to. Goes to consistency.
More to the point, I have seen, Hank, your previous copy and paste posts about Obama appointees you think are not qualified or are “extremist”, and it is apparent that they are not qualified and “extremist” because they don’t agree with your politics. Hardly an objective barometer.
“Care to defend the qualifications of Van Jones or are you just going to be snarky the rest of the day?”
Van Jones was well known for working in and advocating for a green economy before he was appointed. Only in bizzaro world does someone being appointed to work in the same field that they have already been working in make someone unqualified for said job.
“Sproing!
“Sproing!”
This is your troll that is drunk on posted replies.
Any questions?
“Van Jones was well known for working in and advocating for a green economy before he was appointed. Only in bizzaro world does someone being appointed to work in the same field that they have already been working in make someone unqualified for said job.”
In the real world, on the other hand, appointing someone to a high level job when they have never worked in a field related to the job is appointing someone who is unqualified for the job.
Like say…Michael D. Brown.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Brown#IAHA_tenure
It’s not the positions, it is the people holding them.
Editorial: Feingold’s inquiry deserves response
September 25, 2009
U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Middleton, raises important constitutional questions about the growing tendency of presidents to appoint special executives, informally known as “czars,” to tackle specific issues.
Feingold sent a letter to President Barack Obama this month asking for an explanation of the various czars’ roles and responsibilities and how their jobs are consistent with Article II, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution.
That’s the provision that says presidential appointments of ambassadors, judges, cabinet members and other key executive officers will be made “with the advice and consent of the Senate.”
The Wisconsin senator reminded Obama of his stated commitment to transparency and open government, and he said he hopes more transparency with regard to policy czars “will help address some of the concerns that have been raised about new positions in the White House and elsewhere in the Executive Branch.”
Once upon a time, before there were separate secretaries of education or energy, presidents appointed an “education czar” and an “energy czar” to help focus attention on key policies. Now we have a safe-schools czar, a czar whose task is to monitor the compensation of corporate executives, a manufacturing czar, a faith-based czar, a green czar and a domestic violence czar — more than two dozen czars, most of them simply appointed by the president with neither the advice nor consent of the Senate.
The loudest noises about this phenomenon have been made by Republicans and their supporters. That led the Democratic National Committee to post an Internet ad this week making fun of the issue and listing 47 special czars that former president George W. Bush appointed.
The ad is extremely confusing: We don’t know any Democrats who believe Bush was a president to be emulated. But that seems to be the entire response to Republican questions about Obama’s czars: Bush did it, so it’s an acceptable practice.
————
While the dems here are saying ‘Bush did it first’ it seems the leaders of their party don’t agree with them.
Regular
Posted September 25, 2009 at 6:43 am | Permalink
The big differences are:
– Bush had 20 of his Czars confirmed by the Senate.
– The Crats counted Bushes Czars more than once. i.e. They count the five different Aids Czars (five different people) instead of counting the position.
– Bush had fewer Czar positions over eight years than O’BAMA has in nine months.
Most importantly, Bush didn’t important left wing nutjobs
–
My, oh my, are we nit picking today to make Bush look good?
And yes, you’re right, Bush did not have left wing nutjobs in those positions – he had right-wing nutjobs that believed God put them in that position.
So, to follow that logic, Bush is God? And you think left wingers are idiotic?
Please, for the love of the true God, get some help with your anger and jealousy of Obama.
Okie dokie grannie – whatever you say – your the boss lady.
Ag if that was what Van Jones was really known for then he would still be in that position. It wasn’t. You lib bloggers need to get with the program. Van the man was thrown under the bus with Obama’s grandma, his preacher and any other person whose real agenda becomes more than the prez wants to defend.
Van’s mouth and past fried him. Bush and the cons aren’t responsible unless you call bringing his deeds to the attention of American voters something bad.
Mr_Kia
Posted September 25, 2009 at 8:56 am | Permalink
It’s not the positions, it is the people holding them
–
And you think Bush’s right wingers are better people?
Yeah, right, try telling that one to the true God and see how he laughs.
cosmos_originally
Posted September 25, 2009 at 7:24 am | Permalink
http://www.greenforall.org/
___________
Mo proves again that he’s a paid blogger with some Soros/Gore funded ultra-left-wing group hoping to make $billons from a cap N tax scheme.
Toto you old dog you. Glad you have finally seen the truth and the fog has lifted.
Okie dokie grannie – I see you’ve been prepared by the puppet master pied piper Rush, so nothing – not even the truth is going to change your little closed mind.
But you have a good day – I’m still praying for you!
Okie – you obviously need the fog – what is the Bible says the evil men do in the dark?
totoinks
Posted September 25, 2009 at 9:11 am | Permalink
Mr_Kia
Posted September 25, 2009 at 8:56 am | Permalink
It’s not the positions, it is the people holding them
–
And you think Bush’s right wingers are better people?
Yeah, right, try telling that one to the true God and see how he laughs.
————————————————–
Whatever. I’m sure those that want to ban all hunting to protect animals makes perfect sense to you.
The point is – dittoheads – is that the Republicans are seen as complaining about Obama having Czars and when there is video of several prominent Republicans bragging about Bush’s czars during the Bush years.
So, that could be seen as being hypocrits – but what is a little hypocrisy between Social Conservative Republicans?
In the overall picture – Republicans are looking like fools and liars to the rest of the country. And mix that in with the fact that Republicans are seen as hating everyone who is not white, that does not make for a good future of the GOP.
But, hey, whatever floats your boat – keep on trucking with that 22% or is it now 18%?
Toto needs a hug.
IN my mind, which is admittedly a little slow this morning due to a lack of adequate amounts of caffiene, there are two issues
1) Obama having advisors that are not in anyway vetted by Congress. While it seems to be in cotradiction to the COostitution, it may be a long held tradition. At the vrey leats, Bush did it too. Okay, I guess that Bush is now the example for Obama to follow? More importantly, are they advisors, or do they have some specific authority other than advising. If they don;t then really, who cares? If they do, then they need to be confirmed by COngress. That’s my take. The President can have all the advisors he wants…But, the minute they step into any authoritize or regulatory role, they are out of bounds, and should be confirmed by Congress. Period. And I don;t give a crap whether Bush did it or not. THat is not the issue. Right or wrong is not established by whether somebody got away with it previously.
2) The advisors themselves. Just a the President has the right to get advisors, the people has a right to critize those selections. The President chose them, he must be held responsible for the political realities as well as the actual realities of such appointments. That includes their previous statements and given opinions. That the President chooses those that have political difficulties because of previous statements and beliefs that have not been shown to be repudiated, and people have a problem with, is his problem to deal with. Not the peoples.
This is such a ridiculous argument. These people are advisors to the president with actual job titles. Because some in the media thought the titles were too long, the word “czar” came into play. Of all the things people could be upset about, this seems to trivial.
Toto you old dog you. I posted a prominent democrat, Finegold saying your prez isn’t playing by the rules and your response is ‘Bush did it first’. How many times do I have to remind the left, Bush is back in Texas and Obama won the election.
Hellooo McFly, Bush is President anymore. Pay attention. You always cower away from any question pertaining to Obama’s presidency with “What about Bush”, blah blah blah.
Do you not have any faith in your current President??!! Well it looks like those 2nd graders did, huh?. Maybe the current administration needs to bring you in for some conditioning like they are doing for the children of the United States of America.
Amazing, I did a search on Children sining songs to Obama and I found many videos. However, the following link has a video that hopefully would be an eye opener to libs but I think they are just as blind as Europe was. The ending is worth watching.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IM5f3dfIp8s
LOL!!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/24/AR2009092404906.html?hpid=topnews
But, keep thinking that you are winning my liberal friends!
Borg,
I just have a qustion for the Obamatrons,is this a wise use of our education tax dollars?
Cant sing religious songs in our schools but it’s ok to sing praises to the president,can you say double standard? And the imagine the screaming from the left if these songs had been about Bush.
Wow Borg, that’s a lot like the songs the kids sing at church. The sight of the smiling oblivious parents gives me the chills.
Worship songs to the Obama.
“President Bush had more such “czars” than President Obama supposedly has.”
The key word here is “supposedly”. Supposedly Obama just calls them something else. Kinda like; “Depends on what your definition of is is.”- Bill Clinton
In my view the issue is not that the president has advisors, but it’s who they are. Obama has Socialists, Communists, Black Nationalists, and other ultra left wingers. Did Bush have some KKK members as advisors?
Free you surely aren’t saying that the left here has a double standard.
I’m just sayin’……….
Seems like a trivial topic, but it’ll be enough to keep the cons distracted until we usher through health care reform. Saw today a poll showing 2/3 of the public support a govt. ins. program. Whatever the dems are doing, it’s working.
Phantom care to share that poll with the rest of us?
Where’s the outrage stemming from the fact that both presidents actually had “czars”?
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/article.php?id=ITW2009091001
20 to 30 expected losses? So soon into the reign of the chosen one?
hehehe
Bet we get to the magic number of forty by Christmas!
But, keep thinking that you are winning my liberal friends!
Ok my turn to attack the messenger instead of the message, where were these defensive topics during the Bush administration? The Eagle certainly was not so concerned during those years of the Bush administration. If anything they failed to even pass on the real negative reports of the administration.
It was not that they did not have access to them, Knight-Ridder reporters uncovered damaging questions of whether the American public was being told the whole truth in the build up to the invasion.
Yet not a word in one of Knight-Ridder owned paper?
Still there was no where close in count of defending of the Bush administration as their is with the Obama administration. Truth is truth no matter which party controls the White House. Don’t get me wrong, for the bad actions of the Bush administration there should be a new level of Hell formed for them.
But the Bush administration did have it innocent and honorable actions too.
Damn someone for what they do that is damnable and defend that they do that is wrongfully indicted for.
In addition, “nearly two-thirds of the country continues to favor the proposal, which is backed by Mr. Obama but has drawn intense fire from most Republicans and some moderate Democrats” (Nagourney and Sussman, 9/24).
CBS News reports that the poll shows “President Barack Obama’s recent speeches and public appearances explaining his proposals for health care reform have made some impact … but he still has work to do, and a majority of Americans remain confused.” Obama’s “approval rating for handling health care is up seven points from one month ago,” from 40 percent to 47 percent. But “[w]en asked whether they mostly favor or oppose the changes to the health care system proposed by the president, 46 percent say they don’t know enough about those changes to have an opinion. But among those who do have an opinion, more support (30 percent) than oppose (23 percent) the reforms” (9/24).
————
Phantom an interesting aside of your article and poll.
A full 46% said they didn’t know enough about it to favor it or not. Of the remaining 54% a full 30% favor it. Not being a statistician I can’t say for sure but being favored by 30% of 54% doesn’t look like much support.
Numbers are funny things. They can say what you want them to say. What these numbers suggest is that only 16 people of every 100 polled are backing the presidents plan. These even falls short of the 80/20 rule which most statisticians will tell you is the norm.
People are still looking at what the prez is blitzing them with and not buying into it in large numbers.
Phantom
Posted September 25, 2009 at 10:56 am | Permalink
In addition, “nearly two-thirds of the country continues to favor the proposal, which is backed by Mr. Obama but has drawn intense fire from most Republicans and some moderate Democrats”
——————
Phantom I don’t know about you but no one called to ask me what I thought. I asked several of my friends and they weren’t asked either. So to say ‘“nearly two-thirds of the country continues to favor the proposal’ seems a little ambitious. Last I heard we were all part of this great country.
The libs can keep pushing this plan with everything they have. Frankly I hope they do. This prez needs to learn some humility and this just might be the hill to show him this on.
Then maybe he can get down to the serious business of presiding as he was elected to do for ‘all of the people’.
30/54, roughly 3/5ths. Not too shabby. The town hall effects have come and gone.
Three KS Lawmakers Call for SRS Probe
Three Republican legislators in Kansas want the attorney general to review a state agency’s decision that gave extra Medicaid funds to a service provider tied to the state Democratic Party’s chairman.
Reps. David Crum of Augusta, Brenda Landwehr of Wichita, and Peggy Mast of Emporia say they want to know if the Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services participated in Medicaid fraud.
SRS Secretary Don Jordan has said he did nothing wrong.
The decision in October 2008 increased annual payments by almost $713,000 for Community Living Opportunities Inc., of Lenexa, a nonprofit group that serves the developmentally disabled. The group lists Democratic Chairman Larry Gates on its board.
—————-
Could we have a little ACORN in our state?
Phantom you don’t work with numbers a lot do you?
Here’s my personal Rule of Thumb –
If Brenda Landwehr is for it, it’s wrong.
I know Brenda Landwehr.
I worked with Brenda Landwehr for several years.
Poor gal has so many personal issues it’s really sad she’s become a stalwart of Kansas Repubicism.
Phantom
Posted September 25, 2009 at 11:20 am | Permalink
30/54, roughly 3/5ths. Not too shabby. The town hall effects have come and gone.
__________
tom seems to be math challenged like most libs here. He thinks 54% a full 30% is “roughly 3/5ths” after first claiming it was “nearly two-thirds”.
54% of remaining 30% is 15.3% of the total. That is less than 1/5. Libs don’t exagerate, they’re just stupid.
Monkeyhawk
Posted September 25, 2009 at 11:38 am | Permalink
Here’s my personal Rule of Thumb –
If Brenda Landwehr is for it, it’s wrong.
I know Brenda Landwehr.
I worked with Brenda Landwehr for several years.
__________________
What did you do for her Monkey? Clean her toilets?
What did you do for her Monkey? Clean her toilets?
LMFAO.
SWOOOOOOOSH!
should be 54% OF a full 30%
I’m surprised Phantom didn’t think that 54% of 30% is “roughly” 54/30 or 5/3.
littlejohn writes: “In my mind, which is admittedly a little slow this morning due to a lack of adequate amounts of caffiene, there are two issues
“1) Obama having advisors that are not in anyway vetted by Congress. While it seems to be in cotradiction to the Constitution, it may be a long held tradition (It is.-A). At the veyy leats, Bush did it too. Okay, I guess that Bush is now the example for Obama to follow? More importantly, are they advisors, or do they have some specific authority other than advising. If they don’t then really, who cares? If they do, then they need to be confirmed by Congress. That’s my take. The President can have all the advisors he wants… But, the minute they step into any authoritization or regulatory role, they are out of bounds, and should be confirmed by Congress. Period. And I don’t give a crap whether Bush did it or not. That is not the issue. Right or wrong is not established by whether somebody got away with it previously.”
Now see, this is a reasonable point of discussion (note okobserver’s pasting of Feingold’s concerns as well). Historically, there have been a lot of advisory positions in executive branches of government (state as well as fed), and the waters are certainly also muddied by the fact that while advisors (e.g., SOME “czar” positions) do not generally have regulatory or administrative authority, they do speak for the administration on issues. In other words, they tend to manage the communication on the issue that they cover. So, can a presidentially appointed “czar” write regulations or authorize policy? No. But, sometimes they essentially define an Administration’s policy simply by communicating it. I personally still think this is a relatively small issue (presidents have had special advisors for years, some of which have been called “czars” since the 1930’s), but it is made all the more confusing by the fact that some “czars” actually have regulatory and executive authority and are confirmed by the Senate, and some have advisory roles and have never been confirmed by the Senate.
What Obama is doing is by no means out of line with what previous presidents have done.
Ag you made some good points. These need to be addressed no matter how long this has been going on or who the prez is.
What brought this to a head was the caliber of czars Obama appointed. Van Jones’ deeds did him in not the czar policies. Several other bizarre published comments have made other czars look less than rational.
Kids don’t become human until after the age of two.
Abortions should be mandatory for population control.
Dogs should have lawyers.
I could go on but the rational will see that what Finegold said is that these type of idiots wouldn’t pass senate approval and we would be able to skip the Jones circuses.
Here’s the Constitutional provison:
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments
What brought it to a head, is that it was a dem admin. making the appointments,whaaaaaaaaaah!
But among those who do have an opinion, more support (30 percent) than oppose (23 percent) the reforms” (9/24).
Of those having an opinion, the 53%, 3 out of 5 are in favor, I’d say that represents 60%, those not knowledgeable enough to have an opinion, really don’t matter anyway (unless the form one, and if they haven’t by now, it’s not likely).
All of the Republican leadership is stating that substantial health care reforms are needed.
I think everybody knows the system is broken. I think a small minority denies it just to be anti-Obama-esque.
Phantom remember when Bush was accused of using fuzzy math. Yours is way past the fuzzy stage. What your poll told me is that people who have been exposed to this plan don’t like it and people who aren’t knowledgeable enough to comment were out in droves.
Makes me wonder where they took this survey. A rock concert? I saw someones interview on the street the other day and 20 somethings didn’t know who the father of our country was. Their geography was horendous. So if would really make a difference in what group you interviewed and since it was an NBC poll I expect it was young and demo.
If there was anything to the “Czar” complaints, the Rs would be doing something or suing someone. Since there are no real issues with advisors and project managers, they are just raising this stink and smoke. Politics as usual.
It’s just another bright shiny object the rank and file cons can latch on to, doesn’t amount to a pile of beans in this upsided down topsy turvy world.
David I have gone on record as saying that reform is needed. Trashing the current system for something that is untested, untried and goes against the advise of the CBO is however foolhardy and can’t be called reform.
Calmer heads need to prevail. A comprehensive plan that isn’t rushed through and has very precise details is needed. Talking to reps from Mass. and Hawaii where healthcare has been in place would be a good move. Running the system in a test market before releasing it on the nation would be prudent on the part of the house.
Saying “I don’t know the details” is an unacceptable answer from our elected representatives.
It’s the lack of quality, not the excess of quantity of czars. And why is Obamanation holding so few cabinet meetings?
- – -
More than a dozen GOP congressmen are demanding that Science Czar John Holdren explain before Congress his extremist views, particularly that a baby that has already been born might “ultimately” become a human being if given the proper socializing experiences.
Tree-hugger Holdren has also espoused forced abortions and mass sterilizations to help save the planet, believing such actions to be constitutional for enforcement of “sustainable well-being.”
- – -
Diversity czar Mark Lloyd at the Federal Communications Commission has spoken publicly of using racial quotas to force white media executives to “step down” in favor of minorities, prescribed policies to make liberal talk radio more successful, and described Hugo Chavez’s rise to power in Venezuela “an incredible revolution.”
- – -
Regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, who has sought to legalize forced organ harvesting, the killing of newborn babies, and to ban hunting, argues against any continued restrictions on abortions, and that animals are entitled to the same rights as newborn human babies.
- – -
How many Marxists, Communists, domestic terrorists, raving racialists, abortionist quacks, and sodomites does the President have the audacity to associate with before reasonable people can assume that the president on some level shares their particular vision of America?
Actually house democrats have called for an investigation into the selection process and responsibilities of the czars.
There are some that realize the radicals have moved into the White House and are usurpping the power of congress. They are concerned that these appointees report to no one and are making policy.
How many Marxists, Communists, domestic terrorists, raving racialists, abortionist quacks, and sodomites !!!!
You left out fornicators!
David if you can disprove what was posted then do it. If not you just make yourself look ill informed with your posts.
There was no outrage at bush Czars, because all the outrage was directed at Clinton’s Cigars!
“Could we have a little ACORN in our state?” [okie]
Did you just pull that ACORN snark out your A** there okie?? I mean, it wasnt anywhere in your post… LOL
They’re not trashing the current system, merely tweaking it. Will probably be ongoing tweaking.
#
parkay
Posted September 25, 2009 at 4:01 pm | Permalink
- – -
How many Marxists, Communists, domestic terrorists, raving racialists, abortionist quacks, and sodomites does the President have the audacity to associate with before reasonable people can assume that the president on some level shares their particular vision of America?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Sodomites? So, when your Mom does that thing that she does so well are you counting her among the Sodomites? Because, if you are, you can mark me down as pro-more-Sodomites-in-government.
granny,
Surely you remember your hero and fearless leader telling us the Constitution was “just a scrap of paper.” So, why bother to bring up constitutional issues?
Daniel,
Didn’t Parkay/Troyboy ever tell you? His mother was a virgin in all ways and meanings of the word!