It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Right-wingers cry socialism over 9/11 anniversary plan backed by many in GOP

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse


If you want to call "overblown" the fact that the Obama Czars for the most part have not been confirmed by Congress... The man just put them in power without any oversight...


Going over the list, it would seem that Obama got a senate confirmation on more than half of the 'Czars' he has appointed.

I can't say the same thing for GW, unfortunately.

Barack Obama: 8 Czars without Senate confirmation. Out of 20.

George W. Bush: 17 Czars without Senate confirmation. Out of 24.

You don't need to be a math professor to see that 8/20 is a considerably smaller ratio than 17/24. However, I will say that the staggering amount of executive appointments during the past two terms alone is alarming. And.. revealing, to say the least.

It would seem Bush set the standard, and from now on every president will be appointing 'Czars' through executive order. At least Obama had the decency to confirm the majority of his appointees with the Senate, although the fact that so many are pushed through without confirmation is troubling.


[edit on 26-8-2009 by drwizardphd]




posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse


Yes there have been some Czars in the past but they were confirmed by Congress. President Bush had 4 Czars and they were confirmed by Congress. President OBama has what 34, or 36? most of which have not been confirmed by Congress.


I like how you squeezed this in before I had a chance to reply.

Did you look at the list I provided? Or do you just like to make up figures for the heck of it?

I mean, to just lie about something like that when the information is right in front of you.. doesn't say much about your integrity.

Bush has had 24 Czars, Obama has had 20. Now, granted that number could increase (and likely will) as Obama's term continues, the fact remains that Bush appointed more than Obama did. The majority of Bush's were not confirmed by the Senate, the majority of Obama's were.

And that is actually a fact, you can count them for yourself in the link I provided.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 01:38 AM
link   
Did you read what that article by Wiki said at the beginning?


The following are executive branch officials to whom the media has referred as a czar of some kind.

excerpted from wiki article.

I would like to actually see a real list, because last i checked and what I have seen before, Clinton only had 3 Czars, and Bush had 4.


While previous administrations had czars – Ronald Reagan had 1, George Bush had 1, Bill Clinton had 3 and George W. Bush had 4 – Congressman Kingston’s concern takes root in the number and speed with which they are being appointed as well as the vast policy areas they govern.

www.traditionalvalues.org...

There is a big difference between the media claiming some people are Czars, and presidents making certain people Czars without confirmation.




[edit on 26-8-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Did you read what that article by Wiki said at the beginning?


The following are executive branch officials to whom the media has referred as a czar of some kind.

excerpted from wiki article.


Because that's all a Czar is! It's not a real thing, the only way a political executive becomes a 'Czar' is when the media labels him/her as one.



Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
I would like to actually see a real list, because last i checked and what I have seen before, Clinton only had 3 Czars, and Bush had 4.


While previous administrations had czars – Ronald Reagan had 1, George Bush had 1, Bill Clinton had 3 and George W. Bush had 4 – Congressman Kingston’s concern takes root in the number and speed with which they are being appointed as well as the vast policy areas they govern.

www.traditionalvalues.org...



Right, that's because that website is a ridiculously slanted right-wing publication. The wikipedia list is accurate, complete, up to date, and unbiased. That article you quoted has a clear axe to grind, and that axe is Obama.

A tip: don't get your information from horrendously slanted political rags and you won't feel slighted when the figures you believed to be true turned out not to be. That's what's great about wikipedia, you can follow the sources and see directly where the information is coming from. Sites like 'traditionalvalues.org' like to just make stuff up because nobody calls them on their sources, because they don't print real news.

Face it, Bush had more appointees than Obama, and a far greater percentage of them were not confirmed by a Senate hearing. If you are going to cry about Obama doing it, fine. But you must also acknowledge and bemoan Bush doing it, because he has done it to a greater degree. If we continue to only call out the 'other side' on their faults, while ignoring our own, then we fall victim to the partisan game that makes shills out of all of us.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 02:20 AM
link   
Well I am seeing socialisms in my milk.

I can't even look at the blacktop on the highway in the same way...

I am of the opinion 9/11 should be "free day"

NOTHING attached to it, no socialisms, or organizing, working, eagles, processions...

I think everybody can define the day for themselves, theme, celebration and all (which could make it a great holiday and industry BTW).

Some might want mourning, others hunting, other naked orgies ( as opposed to clothed :puz
.

I just think those peoples souls should be free of any weight and we are fully able to chose our day how we want.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 02:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa
This is just crazy! The GOP is calling this proposal "socialist" even though it was President Bush that first proposed it.

And this is interesting....





American Spectator, states that the president’s plan for a National Day of Service, to be celebrated on September 11, would eliminate 9/11 as a political tool for Republicans.


Republicans want to use 911 as a political tool? How?

God help us! I used to say like HST that "it can't get to weired for me" but it's getting very close.

rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 25-8-2009 by whaaa]


What the hell you talking about? "Right wingers" does not mean GOP, the article doesn't say GOP...it clearly says that the national day of service had bipartisan support what are the two parties again? Oh yeah, the GOP and DNC. Next time a "left-winger" says they want all of capitalism to die and for communism to reign supreme I'm going to say the DNC said that.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by drwizardphd
Because that's all a Czar is! It's not a real thing, the only way a political executive becomes a 'Czar' is when the media labels him/her as one.


No..there is a big difference between the media claiming some people are Czars, and PRESIDENTS appointing Czars.

According to this site there are 44 Czars named by Obama, and at least 7 more being planned, but this list would have to be checked.
www.oilforimmigration.org...

BTW, why is it that DEMOCRAT Bryd is now protesting the Obama Czars also?

Did Bryd protest against the numbers of Czars under President Bush?

[edit on 26-8-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by drwizardphd

Right, that's because that website is a ridiculously slanted right-wing publication. The wikipedia list is accurate, complete, up to date, and unbiased. That article you quoted has a clear axe to grind, and that axe is Obama.


Oh boy... i guess that's why wikipedia has a bias to the Global Warming hoax, and the editors of wikipedia have been caught editing what SCIENTISTS that doubt the Global Warming hoax has to say...

Wikipedia is not unbiased, more so when anyone can post anything they want, and if the editors of wikipedia like it, they leave it like that, and if they don't like it they edit it either partially, or completely...

The wikipedia article you gave itself states those are Czars NAMED BY THE MEDIA....




[edit on 26-8-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by debunky
... its pretty easy to have more czars than russia. they used to have only one, and none at all since 1917.


No, the Romanovs had 18 Czars, that's more than 1 Czar.

[edit on 26-8-2009 by ElectricUniverse]


Oh? so we are adding them up? That's a tad unfair isn't it? In that case: no. I would have to look up the actual number but russia definitely had more czars than the US has today since Ivan the III.

Of course that finally robs the sentence of all meaning. So yes: Ronnie Reagan did have more czars than russia/less czars than russia if you add them up. But he still told gorbatchev to tear down that wall!

also can you help where exactly in US law can i find the definition of czar? I am having a hard time finding a starting point to be honest.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 03:33 AM
link   
[edit on 26-8-2009 by JDG-ART]



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 09:38 AM
link   
I for one along with a few close friends are going to have a party in remembrance of a friend that was sacrificed on 9/11. To a man we all
believe that this was a false flag operation and not part of some jihad.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by jd140
 



I also wouldn't care if President Bush proposed it. I don't think one of the worse days of American history should be used as a political tool to have Americans work free for the government,



WHAT? This is a day of National SERVICE, not WORK FOR THE GOV!

Do you owe your community ANYTHING? ANYTHING AT ALL?

We are a nation of people who piss on others now, there is no concept of community or society and I guess that's the way you want it to stay.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Yes there have been some Czars in the past but they were confirmed by the Senate. President Bush had 4 Czars and they were confirmed by the Senate. President OBama has what 34, or 36? most of which have not been confirmed by the Senate.


Well, numbers matter. If there are 36 individuals doing business in the Obama administration, they can't be 'czars' (which implies they wield God-like powers). They are more like mid-level managers. Semantics matters.

Attorney General, Supreme Court etc are closer to Uber God concept, but all of these are approved after quite a bit of scrutiny.

So, as usual, your argument doesn't hold water.




top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join