TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Actual Facism... Actually Happening
Pages (4): « 1 2 [3] 4 »

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN sometimes? i can't remember the last time i saw 17sss come up with an argument that was both valid AND substantial. as far as im concerned he is emblematic of everything that is wrong with political discourse in the US (at least at a public level).

Thats what happens when you have no agenda to propose or set.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN sometimes? i can't remember the last time i saw 17sss come up with an argument that was both valid AND substantial. as far as im concerned he is emblematic of everything that is wrong with political discourse in the US (at least at a public level).

sorry man it's just weird to hear that when I'm a native to the U.S. and you live on a small island 20,000 miles from here. Political discourse in the U.S., and crazy as it can be, is a lot better and more civil than the vast majority of the alternatives.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss sorry man it's just weird to hear that when I'm a native to the U.S. and you live on a small island 20,000 miles from here. Political discourse in the U.S., and crazy as it can be, is a lot better and more civil than the vast majority of the alternatives.

So, rampant scare-mongering counts as being civil?

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss sorry man it's just weird to hear that when I'm a native to the U.S. and you live on a small island 20,000 miles from here. Political discourse in the U.S., and crazy as it can be, is a lot better and more civil than the vast majority of the alternatives.

What are those alternatives? North Korea?

Surely we can measure ourselves to a slightly higher standard...

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis What are those alternatives? North Korea? Surely we can measure ourselves to a slightly higher standard...

no doubt man. I'm just saying... if you've ever watched a session of even the UK's parlament in session, there are constant shouts and boos and yelling out. And they are supposed to be the upper echelon of civility. As they say, 2 things you never want to witness being made: sausage and laws.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss no doubt man. I'm just saying... if you've ever watched a session of even the UK's parlament in session, there are constant shouts and boos and yelling out. And they are supposed to be the upper echelon of civility. As they say, 2 things you never want to witness being made: sausage and laws.

its a little disingenuous to compare question time to an address of this nature by the president to both houses. i believe these kind of addresses are only carried out on the rarest of occasions? hardly the same thing as question time.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss I'm talking about this line from the article: no stone unturned eh? plus he had a couple of criminal convictions already. Plus he was investigated by the FBI. lol dude you will do/say anything to carry Obama's water.

And you think this guy put that in his questionnaire? You'r making an issue out of a non-issue, seriously. The news channels have more than moved on with this piece of insignificant news.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Political discourse in the U.S., and crazy as it can be, is a lot better and more civil than the vast majority of the alternatives.

I certainly don't know what you're basing this on, but I can't fathom it. I really have to disagree. Dialogue between you and myself as a prime example.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...ZHW-ywD9AL00A00

Damn, look at all of that astroturf.

http://moderateinthemiddle.wordpres...ty-on-patriots/

I think we need to get a broader understanding of this bullshit "czar" controversy. For one, out of the some 30 or so czar positions, 10 of these positions were either confirmed by the Senate or were created by statute:

quote:

* R. Gil Kerlikowske, confirmed as the Director of National Drug Control Policy on May 7; listed by Fox as the "drug" czar; * Dennis Blair, confirmed as the Director of National Intelligence on January 28; listed as the "intelligence" czar. * Cass Sunstein, confirmed as the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget on September 10; listed by Fox as the "regulatory" czar. * John Holdren, confirmed as the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy on March 19; listed by Fox as the "science" czar. * Herbert Allison, confirmed as the Department of the Treasury's Assistant Secretary for Financial Stability on June 19; listed by Fox as the "TARP" czar. * Ashton Carter, confirmed as the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics on April 23; listed by Fox as the "weapons" czar. * Aneesh Chopra, confirmed as an associate director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy on May 21 and also named Chief Technology Officer of the United States by President Obama; listed by Fox as the "technology" czar. * David J. Hayes, confirmed as Deputy Secretary of the Interior on May 20 and appointed by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar as "lead official for Interior and the Obama Administration in coordinating the federal response to California water supply" on June 28; listed by Fox as "California water" czar. These 2 were specifically created by statute: * The position occupied by Vivek Kundra, the chief information officer for the Office of Management and Budget, was created by the E-Government Act of 2002. Fox listed Kundra as "information" czar. * The position occupied by Earl Devaney, chairperson of the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, was created by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Fox listed Devaney as "stimulus accountability" czar.

13 more czars were derived by the previous Bush Administration:

quote:

According to the Library of Congress' Thomas database, Kerlikowske, Blair, Sunstein, Holdren, Carter, and Chopra all filled positions that were previously held by Bush administration appointees; Blair's position was created by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA) of 2004. Additionally, Kundra's position was created in 2002. http://thomas.loc.gov/home/nomis.html

Furthermore:

quote:

In at least six other cases, Bush administration officials held similar or identical positions to those of the officials listed by Fox: * Joshua DuBois, listed by Fox as "faith-based" czar, is the director of the White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships. During the Bush administration, Bush first appointed John Dilulio as the director of the White House Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives. * George Mitchell, listed as by Fox as "Mideast peace" czar, is the special envoy to the Middle East. Retired Marine General Anthony C. Zinni served as "U.S. special envoy to the Middle East" during the Bush administration. * J. Scott Gration, listed by Fox as "Sudan" czar, serves as special envoy to Sudan. During the Bush administration, former Sen. John Danforth, Andrew S. Natsios, and Richard S. Williamson served as special envoys to Sudan. * John Brennan, listed by Fox as "terrorism" czar, serves as the assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism. Bush created the position of "assistant to the president for homeland security" and appointed Tom Ridge to that position. Frances Townsend and Ken Wainstein later held the same position during the Bush administration. * Richard Holbrooke, listed by Fox as "Afghanistan" czar, is the special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan. During the Bush administration, Zalmay Khalilzad held the position of special presidential envoy for Afghanistan before becoming the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan. * Jeffrey Crowley, listed by Fox as the "AIDS" czar, is the director of the Office of National AIDS Policy. During the Bush administration, Joseph O'Neill held the same position. http://mediamatters.org/research/200909110038

So the rise in fascism, communism, Nazism, something-ism must have therefore been derived from Bush, right?

But hey, IOKIYAR once again. Besides, the story fits better when you have a Democratic president who wants to take over the world and kill all the fucking unicorns out there.........

You love that acronym don't you? I actually had to look it up to figure it out. The only ones that this old Internet bat knows are lol, roflmao, imho, iow, fwiw and a couple of new ones recently like lmk. I'm stuck in the dark ages. You seem to have found a fountain of youth! I did get an iPhone though.

Also, is Ben Bernanke a czar? If so, I'm glad we got him.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I think we need to get a broader understanding of this bullshit "czar" controversy.

you're missing the point. They are anti-democratic and an example of a lack of accountability concerning what was advertised as "a new era of transparency and accountability".

quote:

They hold unknown levels of power over broad swaths of policy. Under the Obama administration, we have an unprecedented 32 czar posts (a few of which it has yet to fill), including a �car czar,� a �pay czar� and an �information czar.� There are also czars assigned to some of the broadest and most consequential topics in policy, including health care, terrorism, economics and key geographic regions. So what do these czars do? Do they advise the president? Or do they impose the administration�s agenda on the heads of federal agencies and offices who have been vetted and confirmed by the Senate? Unfortunately � and in direct contravention of the Framers� intentions � virtually no one can say with certainty what these individuals do or what limits are placed on their authority. We don�t know if they are influencing or implementing policy. We don�t know if they possess philosophical views or political affiliations that are inappropriate or overreaching in the context of their work. This is precisely the kind of ambiguity the Framers sought to prevent. Article One tasks the legislative branch with establishing federal agencies, defining what they do, determining who leads them and overseeing their operations. Article Two requires the president to seek the advice and consent of the Senate when appointing certain officials to posts of consequence. Thus, authority is shared between government branches, guaranteeing the American people transparency and accountability.

Rest of article here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...9091103504.html

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss you're missing the point. They are anti-democratic and an example of a lack of accountability concerning what was advertised as "a new era of transparency and accountability".

What's undemocratic about hiring some people to carry out policy for the president? Obama can't do it all by himself. Were you complaining about the czars Mr. Bush created? I think you'r complaining because it's Obama and not a Republican in the White House. Point is, this is a non-issue. If this is all Republicans have, then Obama is doing a pretty good fucking job.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss you're missing the point. They are anti-democratic and an example of a lack of accountability concerning what was advertised as "a new era of transparency and accountability". Rest of article here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...9091103504.html

Yes, and thank you for your retort with an opinion piece from a Republican Texas Senator. What I would like to know both from you and Senator Hutchinson is this:

where the fuck was your outrage when Bush created all these czar positions in his Administration?

I grant you with full condemnation from many of us on the liberal side of things that Obama has strayed pretty far from his "accountability" promise. I believe Lebez has attempted to bring this to your attention on a number of occasions. But just as we on the far, far extremist side of the aisle who are equally angered by Obama's lack of transparency on things like civil liberties (i.e. FISA laws, torture statutes, etc.), folks like myself were looking far and wide for individuals like you and Senator Hutchinson on Bush and his blatant abuse of transparency.

I am curious - do you or any conservative for that matter have even a whiff of anger or resentment towards Bush for creating this "secretive" "Communist-like" posts? Or better yet, how about ol' Ronnie Reagan? You realize he pretty much helped create these czar positions, right? Does your anger for Bush or Reagan come close at all to that you have for Obama? Methinks it's not even close, and it's pretty fucking obvious why. Because if these positions are as eeeeevil as you, Hutchinson, Limbaugh, Beck, and Hannity portray them to be, then surely such anger would have equally been shared with a Republican Administration in power, right?

Right?

Oh the irony:

quote:

Protesters who attended Saturday�s Tea Party rally in Washington found a new reason to be upset: Apparently they are unhappy with the level of service provided by the subway system. Rep. Kevin Brady called for a government investigation into whether the government-run subway system adequately prepared for this weekend�s rally to protest government spending and government services. Seriously. The Texas Republican on Wednesday released a letter he sent to Washington�s Metro system complaining that the taxpayer-funded subway system was unable to properly transport protesters to the rally to protest government spending and expansion.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/...-metro-service/

The funny part is that the Tea Party crowd was smaller than what normally goes to Nationals games... and Metro has never run additional trains for that. Added to that the fact that the Mall is serviced by several lines makes this claim even more ridiculous and petty. Try riding during rush hour, Mr. Brady!

Also:



lol

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 where the fuck was your outrage when Bush created all these czar positions in his Administration? I grant you with full condemnation from many of us on the liberal side of things that Obama has strayed pretty far from his "accountability" promise. I believe Lebez has attempted to bring this to your attention on a number of occasions. But just as we on the far, far extremist side of the aisle who are equally angered by Obama's lack of transparency on things like civil liberties (i.e. FISA laws, torture statutes, etc.), folks like myself were looking far and wide for individuals like you and Senator Hutchinson on Bush and his blatant abuse of transparency. I am curious - do you or any conservative for that matter have even a whiff of anger or resentment towards Bush for creating this "secretive" "Communist-like" posts? Or better yet, how about ol' Ronnie Reagan? You realize he pretty much helped create these czar positions, right? Does your anger for Bush or Reagan come close at all to that you have for Obama? Methinks it's not even close, and it's pretty fucking obvious why. Because if these positions are as eeeeevil as you, Hutchinson, Limbaugh, Beck, and Hannity portray them to be, then surely such anger would have equally been shared with a Republican Administration in power, right?Right?

As I've explained several times... I have only been posting on here for less than a year and a half. I was not around during all of the rampant bush denunciations that went on prior to that. However, I have said on many occasions and explained that I absolutely detested the direction Bush took the party, from about 2005 on. He abandoned the conservative principles he ran on, and incresed spending and government size beyond the acceptable pale... this is something I hated, and I still hate to this day, and have mentioned on here many times when people wrongly accuse me of being in lock step with Bush's policies, which seems to always be the default argument against me or other conservatives when we show dissent for Obama's decisions.

I am aware that Lebez has brought this to my attention... I just wonder, how many times am I going to have to reiterate my answer?

Lebez: go ahead and crack on 47 czars... that was a total over 8 years. Obama has 36 so far in 8 months, and I don't expect that number to decrease... plus when you compare it to his 15 or so cabinet appointees who actually have to show accountability and go through a confirmation process, it's a problem. Thank god we actually have some Democrats pushing back against this now too, like Rep. Dan Boren of Oklahoma and Robert Byrd (which is the last time I'll be in agreement with a former Klansman).

So apparently Obama must be everywhere at once.

quote:

Originally posted by Brahman So apparently Obama must be everywhere at once.

isn't he already? dude is omnipresent. 263 speeches in 233 days, 122 public addresses on healthcare, and this weekend he'll be on all 5 Sunday morning shows doing more. He's on ESPN talking about basketball, Michelle is on the Food Network talking about recipes... we can't escape! The overexposure is making people start to tune out.

quote:

Originally posted by Brahman So apparently Obama must be everywhere at once.

isn't he already? dude is omnipresent. 263 speeches in 233 days, 122 public addresses on healthcare, and this weekend he'll be on all 5 Sunday morning shows doing more. He's on ESPN talking about basketball, Michelle is on the Food Network talking about recipes... we can't escape! The overexposure is making people start to tune out.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Lebez: go ahead and crack on 47 czars... that was a total over 8 years. Obama has 36 so far in 8 months, and I don't expect that number to decrease... plus when you compare it to his 15 or so cabinet appointees who actually have to show accountability and go through a confirmation process, it's a problem. Thank god we actually have some Democrats pushing back against this now too, like Rep. Dan Boren of Oklahoma and Robert Byrd (which is the last time I'll be in agreement with a former Klansman).

And yet, nearly all those positions were created by Bush and confirmed or legislated through Congress. I'm not even giving Bush a hard time about this - I just think it's a silly thing to have your panties in a twist about altogether!

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss isn't he already? dude is omnipresent. 263 speeches in 233 days, 122 public addresses on healthcare, and this weekend he'll be on all 5 Sunday morning shows doing more. He's on ESPN talking about basketball, Michelle is on the Food Network talking about recipes... we can't escape! The overexposure is making people start to tune out.

Only to a Republican is that a bad thing. Question, does every government employee have to be confirmed by Congress?

quote:

Originally posted by Brahman Only to a Republican is that a bad thing. Question, does every government employee have to be confirmed by Congress?

Seriously. Every time a Republican claims that not enough time was spent debating a bill before voting, I'll remember this argument.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Seriously. Every time a Republican claims that not enough time was spent debating a bill before voting, I'll remember this argument.

God help the President when he is actually doing his job.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.