What do you thinks of the Czars?
- Thread starter RBBailey
- Start date
okay
what are we talking about here?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars
what are we talking about here?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars
I think they are not actually czars, just department heads... despite what you may have heard on Fox.
There are unelected and should be tossed. At the same time they are part of the Obama administrations problem but I doubt Obama realizes it. The administration is in disarray with significant infighting. That's what happens with little to no leadership and unaccountable fiefdoms.
knewsom said:
Contrary to what some believe, Fox isn't a lie-factory. They sit lightly on the other side of a scale heavily weighted in opposition. They are certainly no worse than the rest.
Of course they aren't czars. That just rhymes with the word "car", and it worked for everyone in the press. It works as praise and as insult, depending on context.
They are people in positions that should not exist, with more directive power than should be allowed, aside from the power of the positions for which we just voted.
When you give something to Uncle Sam, he never gives it back.
Cheers,
Kennith
Actually I don't think much about Czars, Tsars, Csars, Kaisers, or Caesars be they modern American despots or ancient European despots. Now a cute, shapely, 25 year old, blond, female Czarina I might think about some provided my good wife doesn't find out and do me great bodily harm.
I don't think the czars are constitutional. In fact, I know they aren't. You can call them heads of departments if you want, but that isn't how they always operate. Some of them are under the heads of the head of the cabinet position they most closely fall under, some of them are heads of departments that didn't exist before they got their job, some of them are actually in charge of things they don't say they are by title. But the bottom line is that many of them are not, and never will be, approved by congress, and most of them have no one to answer two but the president himself.
No check, no balance; it's the same as a monarchy.
By the way, I think Obama has only just surpassed Bush in the appointment of czars, so this isn't a dem/rep thing.
No check, no balance; it's the same as a monarchy.
By the way, I think Obama has only just surpassed Bush in the appointment of czars, so this isn't a dem/rep thing.
I just wish LC would deliver....who wants to get lit on medical weed and have to drive out to get some 'za?
Quick! Everyone find Google! There might be an argument! :rofl:
I still say remove them by... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkmlujV-TvU
Cheers,
Kennith
I still say remove them by... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkmlujV-TvU
Cheers,
Kennith
oh you mean the idiots appointed by the "anointed one" who do not have to answer to anyone but the "anointed one", are not required to disclose spending or earnings to anyone but the "anointed one" and have the ability to do whatever they want because B. Hussain Obama says so? Fuck 'em, throw 'em out. It's inflated government offices that are not needed.