NCAAbbs

Thank goodness that lunatic Van Jones resigned. Now if we can get about 4 or 5 of the other radical nutjobs out of Czar positions, then I would feel a lot better about the Obama administration.

If we can somehow get rid of the biggest nutjob, Obama, then the rest should fall with him.

The sad thing is that he didn't resign because of his radical beliefs were wrong, he resigned because he got caught.

It was all a smear campaign. Those weren't videos of him giving speeches. That wasn't his signature on a 9/11 truthers petition. He wasn't the one who said that he is a communist. It was the vast right wing conspiracy.

Maybe calling an avowed communist "czar" was a poor choice of nomenclature.

Just sayin'.

(09-06-2009 08:11 PM)Smaug Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe calling an avowed communist "czar" was a poor choice of nomenclature.

Just sayin'.

Fits in with calling Obama a communist nazi

(09-06-2009 08:11 PM)Smaug Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe calling an avowed communist "czar" was a poor choice of nomenclature.

Just sayin'.

I had often thought about that very same irony. I was beginning to wonder if I was alone in seeing the humor there.

(09-07-2009 12:59 AM)89_Blazer Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-06-2009 08:11 PM)Smaug Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe calling an avowed communist "czar" was a poor choice of nomenclature.

Just sayin'.

I had often thought about that very same irony. I was beginning to wonder if I was alone in seeing the humor there.

Also the fact that the guy was supposed to be creating jobs. Commies don't create jobs, they just assign them.

(09-06-2009 08:11 PM)Smaug Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe calling an avowed communist "czar" was a poor choice of nomenclature.

Just sayin'.

Sigh...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/16...89465.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S...anch_czars

(09-17-2009 04:17 PM)BlazerUnit Wrote: [ -> ]Sigh...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/16...89465.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S...anch_czars

I, for one, do not have a problem with having "czars," BUnit. I do have a problem with many of the people filling these positions that are, by definition, not officially part of the Executive branch and, therefore, immune from normal checks and balances.

...not to mention the whole ADMITTED COMMUNIST/ 9-11 truther thing.

(09-18-2009 08:11 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote: [ -> ]...not to mention the whole ADMITTED COMMUNIST/ 9-11 truther thing.

but, but, but....bho didn't know

(09-17-2009 04:17 PM)BlazerUnit Wrote: [ -> ]Sigh...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/16...89465.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S...anch_czars

You post those links to show that Republicans use them too. While Obama has 32 czars, Bush had 35. So, in essence, you are admitting that Obama is 92% as sh*tty as Bush was. I'm glad to see you are starting to come around.

On a side note, I would like to thank FDR for another great idea.

This whole czar thing is stupid. These people's job titles are stuff like Under Secretary for Industrial Affairs and crap like that. These positions have always existed, the media has come up with the term 'czar' which I think is retarded. The "Drug Czar" is the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy for example. These are just government bureaucrats that have always been there in order to run the government. You don't honestly think that the President of the United States personally runs a government all by himself do you?

(09-18-2009 10:48 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]This whole czar thing is stupid. These people's job titles are stuff like Under Secretary for Industrial Affairs and crap like that. These positions have always existed, the media has come up with the term 'czar' which I think is retarded. The "Drug Czar" is the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy for example. These are just government bureaucrats that have always been there in order to run the government. You don't honestly think that the President of the United States personally runs a government all by himself do you?

Actually, no, these positions have not "always existed." If you go back, and you probably would not have to go far, you would come to a time in our history when these positions did not exist. They came into being as the federal government became bloated with bureaucracy. What I would really like to see is a slashing in the size of the federal government to the point these people are not necessary.

(09-18-2009 12:18 PM)BatesUAB Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-18-2009 10:48 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]This whole czar thing is stupid. These people's job titles are stuff like Under Secretary for Industrial Affairs and crap like that. These positions have always existed, the media has come up with the term 'czar' which I think is retarded. The "Drug Czar" is the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy for example. These are just government bureaucrats that have always been there in order to run the government. You don't honestly think that the President of the United States personally runs a government all by himself do you?

Actually, no, these positions have not "always existed." If you go back, and you probably would not have to go far, you would come to a time in our history when these positions did not exist. They came into being as the federal government became bloated with bureaucracy. What I would really like to see is a slashing in the size of the federal government to the point these people are not necessary.

Be careful, Bates. If mixedup tries to comprehend a time when the government wasn't responsible for protecting people from themselves and only handled things like national security and regulation of interstate/international trade, his brain might explode. Do you want that on your conscience?

(09-18-2009 02:22 PM)blazr Wrote: [ -> ]Do you want that on your conscience?

You forgot- conservatives don't have a conscience.....

Nixon started semi-official use of the term when he appointed Jerome Jaffe his "energy czar" in 1971. But he was building on practices going back to the first Roosevelt and expanding under his cousin. So it hasn't "always been there" but does stretch over almost half of US history.

(09-18-2009 11:14 PM)58-56 Wrote: [ -> ]Nixon started semi-official use of the term when he appointed Jerome Jaffe his "energy czar" in 1971. But he was building on practices going back to the first Roosevelt and expanding under his cousin. So it hasn't "always been there" but does stretch over almost half of US history.

There have always been people working in government other than the president. the fact that they are called czars or under secretaries or anything else is secondary to what they actually do, and these people don't do anything different than they did under the bush, clinton, bush, reagan, etc. administrations.

(09-18-2009 11:51 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-18-2009 11:14 PM)58-56 Wrote: [ -> ]Nixon started semi-official use of the term when he appointed Jerome Jaffe his "energy czar" in 1971. But he was building on practices going back to the first Roosevelt and expanding under his cousin. So it hasn't "always been there" but does stretch over almost half of US history.

There have always been people working in government other than the president. the fact that they are called czars or under secretaries or anything else is secondary to what they actually do, and these people don't do anything different than they did under the bush, clinton, bush, reagan, etc. administrations.

I love how you justify things. So and so did it, so there is nothing wrong with it. We get it, you have a love fest with Obama being President. He can do no wrong in your eyes.

President Obama comes in and pushes through the stimulus bill, which is mostly waste and full of pork. He then hires a bunch of czars that anyone in their right mind would consider radicals. He takes over General Motors. He is trying to take over 1/6 of the gross national product through healthcare reform.

You wouldn't have a problem if Obama hired a middle eastern muslim to head up Homeland Security, would you? While the rest of us would question how smart it is to do that, you would view it as everyone attacking the President for no reason. Of course, you would naturally start looking at everyone that has headed Homeland Security to determine if another President appointed another minority or a muslim to help defend doing so. Hopefully, you get the picture...but I really don't think you do.

(09-19-2009 06:42 AM)RBB Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-18-2009 11:51 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-18-2009 11:14 PM)58-56 Wrote: [ -> ]Nixon started semi-official use of the term when he appointed Jerome Jaffe his "energy czar" in 1971. But he was building on practices going back to the first Roosevelt and expanding under his cousin. So it hasn't "always been there" but does stretch over almost half of US history.

There have always been people working in government other than the president. the fact that they are called czars or under secretaries or anything else is secondary to what they actually do, and these people don't do anything different than they did under the bush, clinton, bush, reagan, etc. administrations.

I love how you justify things. So and so did it, so there is nothing wrong with it. We get it, you have a love fest with Obama being President. He can do no wrong in your eyes.

President Obama comes in and pushes through the stimulus bill, which is mostly waste and full of pork. He then hires a bunch of czars that anyone in their right mind would consider radicals. He takes over General Motors. He is trying to take over 1/6 of the gross national product through healthcare reform.

You wouldn't have a problem if Obama hired a middle eastern muslim to head up Homeland Security, would you? While the rest of us would question how smart it is to do that, you would view it as everyone attacking the President for no reason. Of course, you would naturally start looking at everyone that has headed Homeland Security to determine if another President appointed another minority or a muslim to help defend doing so. Hopefully, you get the picture...but I really don't think you do.

I would judge the person based on more than their race or religion because I'm not a bigot, but that's just me. I'm done with this discussion, because it's obvious that from your side it's not based on rational differences you have on policy but is instead based on race and religion.

"You wouldn't have a problem if Obama hired a middle eastern muslim to head up Homeland Security, would you?"

http://blogs.phillyburbs.com/news/bcct/w...oldier.jpg

(09-19-2009 08:46 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-19-2009 06:42 AM)RBB Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-18-2009 11:51 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-18-2009 11:14 PM)58-56 Wrote: [ -> ]Nixon started semi-official use of the term when he appointed Jerome Jaffe his "energy czar" in 1971. But he was building on practices going back to the first Roosevelt and expanding under his cousin. So it hasn't "always been there" but does stretch over almost half of US history.

There have always been people working in government other than the president. the fact that they are called czars or under secretaries or anything else is secondary to what they actually do, and these people don't do anything different than they did under the bush, clinton, bush, reagan, etc. administrations.

I love how you justify things. So and so did it, so there is nothing wrong with it. We get it, you have a love fest with Obama being President. He can do no wrong in your eyes.

President Obama comes in and pushes through the stimulus bill, which is mostly waste and full of pork. He then hires a bunch of czars that anyone in their right mind would consider radicals. He takes over General Motors. He is trying to take over 1/6 of the gross national product through healthcare reform.

You wouldn't have a problem if Obama hired a middle eastern muslim to head up Homeland Security, would you? While the rest of us would question how smart it is to do that, you would view it as everyone attacking the President for no reason. Of course, you would naturally start looking at everyone that has headed Homeland Security to determine if another President appointed another minority or a muslim to help defend doing so. Hopefully, you get the picture...but I really don't think you do.

I would judge the person based on more than their race or religion because I'm not a bigot, but that's just me. I'm done with this discussion, because it's obvious that from your side it's not based on rational differences you have on policy but is instead based on race and religion.

My policy is based on race and religion? C'mon, you have got to be kidding me. My side is based on smaller government, free market and capitalism. Leave my health care and insurance alone. Stop taxing the living crap out of me so that we can blow all the money on corrupt organizations and wasteful spending. I am for the constitution and the ability to live the American dream by working hard and doing what is in the best interest of my family. I am also about safety and security of our nation.

A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one who regards or treats members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.[1] Bigotry is the corresponding mindset or action.

The term bigot is often misused to pejoratively label those who merely oppose or disagree with the devotion of another. The correct use of the term, however, requires the elements of obstinacy, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing devotion.


**********Note to Mixedup**********

My analogy should have said, "middle eastern born, religious fantatic with views of destroying the US" being appointed to the head of homeland security because that was the point that I was trying to make. I do believe that most people would have a problem with this because the homeland security was created to try and stop terrorist attacks and protect citizens from the terrorist organizations.

Without dissecting my comment, hopefully, you understood my point that I tried to convey....is there anything this administration could do that you would disagree with.

you didn't say that though, you said a middle eastern muslim. your clarification shows, whether you intend it or not, that you think all (or at least the majority) of middle eastern muslims are religious fanatics that wish to do violence against the US. If we used your criteria white christians couldn't serve in government either (eric rudolph, timothy mcvey, etc)

You didn't say anything about the homeland secretary being a big government liberal. You based it solely on race and religion. That is exactly the definition of bigotry.

(09-18-2009 11:51 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-18-2009 11:14 PM)58-56 Wrote: [ -> ]Nixon started semi-official use of the term when he appointed Jerome Jaffe his "energy czar" in 1971. But he was building on practices going back to the first Roosevelt and expanding under his cousin. So it hasn't "always been there" but does stretch over almost half of US history.

There have always been people working in government other than the president. the fact that they are called czars or under secretaries or anything else is secondary to what they actually do, and these people don't do anything different than they did under the bush, clinton, bush, reagan, etc. administrations.

Just because other people are doing it doesn't make it right. Pretty sure most of us learned that when we were 6 or 7 years old.

Forget it RBB, mixdup is the master of derailment and diverting the attention of threads away from the corruption of this administration.

And when all else fails, he will just call you a racist/bigot (since, after all, that is the only possible reason to oppose big government).