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.

___________________
WORSHIP!

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?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Last edited by MisterOpus1 on Sep-16-2009 at 12:18

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.

___________________
WORSHIP!

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!

___________________