It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Do You Know Your Czars?

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 11:03 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 11:05 AM
reply to post by sodakota

Who needs a congress?

Not Obama.......

Obama Sidesteps Congress to appoint a new Head of Medicare

posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 11:05 AM
reply to post by fred call

Did you even bother to check out the links I have provided? My guess is no.

Obama didn't invent Czars in fact a lot of former presidents including Reagan had czars.

But go ahead, blame Obama for something that in fact Wilson started, and the term Czar was coined by the media.

But continue to be a partisan hack and try and shovel disinformation down the people's throats. The short term memory loss I am afraid is yours not mine.

If you don't like Obama that's fine, that's your choice, just don't expect us to sit around and watch you outright lie with nothing to back it up.

[edit on 8/2/2010 by whatukno]

posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 11:17 AM
reply to post by fred call

O bama Sidesteps Congress to appoint a new Head of Medicare

As far as this one goes. That is perfectly Constitutional.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Source: Article II Section 2 of the United States Constitution

So now what? Did somehow Obama go back in time and change the United States Constitution in order to destroy America?

Give us a break!

posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 11:39 AM

Originally posted by Zaxxon
Anyway, they are both propaganda from both sides. These are all mostly reasonable positions.

[edit on 1-8-2010 by Zaxxon]

But the appointees are in no way reasonable.

posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 11:44 AM
reply to post by whatukno

You wrote: So now what? Did somehow Obama go back in time and change the United States Constitution in order to destroy America?

Okay, you are tired of blaming Bush and now you want to blame time travel. Okay? Sounds like an interesting theory. After all, even liberals are getting bored of other liberals constantly blaming Bush.

posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 11:50 AM
reply to post by fred call

You missed my point entirely. What I was showing you is that recess appointments are completely within the purview of the POTUS, and are completely constitutional.

Bush Recess appointments

The above were Bush's recess appointments, they were perfectly Constitutional.

posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 12:55 PM
You know what's kind of humorous about this.

Last night one of the ATS Moderators 'Applauded' this topic I posted.

This morning another ATS Modertaor deemed it off topic.

Ah, well. Bureaucracy, everyone seems to have one.

posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 01:39 PM
LOL.....that blog is hilarious. Love these gems:

"anti-business, anti nuclear, anti gun"
"radical homosexual....wants free healthcare for all gays"
"chief of staff for TED KENNEDY"
"monitors all private internet email"
"vicious anti male feminist, supported male castration"
"married to a reporter of The New York Times"

No bias there.......look they've all had advisors, directors appointed. As pointed out, the term CZAR has been around for along time. It's just being pushed more now to instill fear into Republicans by trying to tie Obama to the memories of the cold war against communism.

What I find more interesting/telling, is the OP registered in 2004 and has never made a single post until July 30 2010. At the time of this post, they've made 164 posts and 13 threads in 4 days. That sends up more red flags to me, then that blog does. Would we know you under a different "nic" perhaps?

[edit on 2-8-2010 by Connector]

posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 01:47 PM
reply to post by Connector

I bet you liberals have more red flags than all the bull fighters in Spain and Mexico combined have got red capes.

Now, what was that you said about conservatives being afraid?

Whoops. There goes another red flag thrown into the ground by another liberal.

Watch those red flags. You might get one stuck in your foot by accident.

posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 01:50 PM
reply to post by fred call

Thanks for not replying to any of my points and resorting to insults and babbling. Your post makes no sense in the context of the topic at hand.

Where did I say I was a liberal?

posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 01:56 PM
reply to post by Connector

You wrote: they've made 164 posts and 13 threads in 4 days.

Thanks. I was wondering how many more posts I have to go to make the 200 mark to use the live chat. I didn't know how to go about counting my sum total of posts. You did it for me. I owe you.

posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 01:57 PM
This kind of partisan tripe is what is wrong in America. The constant left v right crap has to go.
There are some valid points made but it is immediately tainted by a display of grotesque bias.

What is important here is Liberty v despotism, Government constrained under the Law and truly representative government. If partisanship and bickering over what party is responsible overshadows these fundamentals, how will we ever solve our collective problems? We need less petty bickering and more cooperation in solving our problems.

posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 01:59 PM
reply to post by Smack

Good thoughts. Now, who do you plan to co-operate with? Us or them?

posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 03:21 PM
reply to post by fred call

"Both of our political parties, at least the honest portion of them, agree conscientiously in the same object: the public good; but they differ essentially in what they deem the means of promoting that good. One side believes it best done by one composition of the governing powers, the other by a different one. One fears most the ignorance of the people; the other the selfishness of rulers independent of them. Which is right, time and experience will prove. We think that one side of this experiment has been long enough tried and proved not to promote the good of the many, and that the other has not been fairly and sufficiently tried. Our opponents think the reverse. With whichever opinion the body of the nation concurs, that must prevail." --Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:52

posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 03:47 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 04:13 PM
Obama's Appointing Cyber Czar Position: A worthy position?
by Mr. T Posted 05/29/09

Obama will be picking a 'cyber czar' that will be in charge of protecting the nation from cyber threats. Obama called this time a "transformational moment" in the country because computer networks are hacked millions of times a day. The new cyber czar will report to the National Security Council and National Economic Council as the head of White House cyber security.

Seeking Obama's Cyber Czar
Andy Greenberg, 12.19.08, 06:00 AM EST
Should the head of cybersecurity in the new administration come from private industry, government or the military?
For weeks, blogs have been buzzing about which Silicon Valley luminary will be tapped as President-elect Barack Obama's chief technology officer, the most innovation-focused position in what has been touted as a hyper-innovative regime.

But the Obama team may also be quietly preparing another, less-flashy tech role. The president-elect has alluded to appointing a so-called "cyber adviser," charged with protecting the government and critical infrastructure from a growing wave of hackers and cyberspies.

"As president, I'll make cyber security the top priority that it should be in the 21st century," Obama said in a rare mention of the issue in a speech at Purdue University last July. "I'll declare our cyber-infrastructure a strategic asset and appoint a National Cyber Adviser who will report directly to me."

Though Obama has yet to define the exact role of that cyber czar, the position could elevate the top cybersecurity role from the Department of Homeland Security to the White House, a position where it's likely to have far more real authority to implement changes.

But whoever accepts that position will likely face a daunting job: taking the reins of the so-called "Cyber Initiative" signed by President Bush last January. The plan, estimated to cost as much as $30 billion, aims to stop the recent flood of intrusions of government and military networks by foreign cyberspies and to reinforce the digital protections on private sector systems like transportation, communications and the power grid.

That mix of tough tasks raises a looming question in choosing the information security leader--whether he or she will come from the government, military or private sector.

In fact, the likeliest candidate for the "cyber czar" job may have been seated on stage a few feet away from the presidential front-runner at his Purdue speech. Paul Kurtz, currently a security consultant with Arlington, Va.-based Good Harbor Consulting, is the new administration's top choice for the post, according to several sources within Washington's cybersecurity community, although he has privately told colleagues that he is reluctant to accept it.

posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 04:46 PM
Mark Lloyd, Obama/Soros hitman at the FCC

A Senior Fellow at the George Soros’ Center for American Progress, Mark Lloyd’s antipathy towards non-leftist participation in the public square is well known. He has written two anti-free speech hit pieces on “conservative talk radio” … a CAP “analysis” “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio” which never examines talk radio in the larger sphere as being the only alternative to Leftist dominated broadcast television (news and entertainment), newspapers, university and college campuses … and “Forget the Fairness Doctrine”, a whiney little piece where Lloyd tries to bare his teeth against people who oppose his conclusions in the first piece and defends his Trojan Horse plan to achieve his own STFU policy towards conservative talk radio with so-called “local diversity” objectives.

No, nothing to worry about here with Lloyd at the FCC.

Radio free-speech advocates aren’t buying it

Zogby/O’Leary Poll shows most American voters disagree with Mark
Lloyd’s call for Fairness Doctrine-style censorship

By Brad O’Leary

Washington, D.C. — Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski recently appointed Mark Lloyd, a former senior fellow at the George Soros-funded Center for American Progress (CAP), to be the FCC’s “Chief Diversity Officer.” Lloyd is a proponent of the Fairness Doctrine and recently wrote that the Doctrine, and other regulatory tools such as localism and diversity mandates, should be employed by the FCC to limit the number of conservative voices on the air and supplant them with liberal voices. He also suggests fining conservative radio stations up to $250 million and giving the proceeds to national public radio. According to polling conducted by Zogby International and The O’Leary Report, most American voters disagree with
what Lloyd prescribes.

posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 05:34 PM
reply to post by fred call

Uhhh...T&C requires you to use external quote tags and include links to your sources. You might want to fix that before a mod forces you to.

posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 05:37 PM
Here are some "czars" within the administration and what they're making...

Homeland Security Czar: John Brennan, $172,200 (Full title: Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Counterterrorism and Homeland Security)

Energy and Environment Czar: Carol Browner, $172,200 (Full title: Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change)

Urban Affairs Czar: Adolfo Carrion, Jr: $158,500 (Full title: Deputy Assistant to the President and Director, Office of Urban Affairs)

Health Czar: Nancy-Ann DeParle: $158,500 (Full title: Counselor to the President and Director of the White House Office for Health Care Reform)
Noticeably absent??? Car "Czars" Steve Rattner and Ron Bloom. Why? They fall under Treasury!

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in