:SHIT STORM!: is coming, imo.

A new thread was in order, also imo.

Liberal Sen Feingold even wants the Mr T to answer to this Czar thing. Liberal Sen Byrd didn't like it one bit and pointed out where BO 'end runs' the constitution.

What "thing"?

Herm, I think you need to mix in some right wing radio to keep up with Tahoe

Herm, I think you need to mix in some right wing radio to keep up with Tahoe
I know, man. How are you supposed to decide what's important to you, unless you have Rush to tell you what's important to you?

I won't rip him too much for listening to those guys, but dropping references to things that we would only understand if we were listening right along with him is gonna make things difficult to follow.

I know about the energy guy resigning. Nothing else. My bad, I'm sure his "Secretary of Touching Children in Their Naughty Places" is up for review now after it turns out he slept with Robert Bork.

Herm is a Rush fan.

I listen at times, but not as much since I moved to the East Side.

I wasn't sure if I should say a "fan" or a "listener" and then I decided I didn't care enough to type the extra letters.

Tahoe Obscura... kids, don't let this dreadful disease happen to you. :)

^ I forgot...y'all listen to MSNBC. You wouldn't know whats going on in the world.

^ I forgot...y'all listen to MSNBC. You wouldn't know whats going on in the world.


Please tell me.

ah, ha ha, hmmm there are czars and stuff.

I hate the drug czar. Good enough for me.

Only cuz he stole ur nickname.

watch for tahoe's response about czars starting at about 6:20. Well, it is either tahoe or lloyd carr.

ljFKK7XvsCs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executive_branch_%27czars%27

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executive_branch_%27czars%27

Now it's obvious why the right is so agitate over Obama's unprecedented use of czars.

I've about had it with these fucking Libs and their silly "facts".

I've about had it with these fucking Libs and their silly "facts".
Those aren't facts, because they come from sources I don't consider trustworthy. They are wrong simply on the basis of where they come from. Facts can only come from places that tell me things I already agree with.

Those aren't facts, because they come from sources I don't consider trustworthy. They are wrong simply on the basis of where they come from. Facts can only come from places that tell me things I already agree with, such as Tahoe's anus.

Fixed.

Hahaha

http://www.buzzfeed.com/expresident/czar-vs-tsar

How did Bush have 3 Faith Czar's when there is supposed to be a separation of church and state?

The same way this priest ended up having a kid with a stripper:

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/miami-dade/v-fullstory/story/1240626.html
http://cbs4.com/local/Miami.Former.Stripper.2.1200354.html

Some fucking was involved. :)

I hope she looked better when she was a stripper. Check out the picture in that first link. Yuck.

WH and Prince Harry blocked Sen Collins amendment to have Obama's Czars come before the Senate and report on their activities...specifically 18 of them.

BO breaks another promise to the American peeps that voted for them. He ran on a platform of transparency and increased accountability and flips the American peeps the bird.

Well fuck you to, Barack.

"transparency" doesn't mean "letting your political opponents push you around for purposes of creating talk radio fodder" and certainly not when you have the pimp hand like BO does.

Then there's that little thing called the constitution that he's pushing around. And "political opponents"????? some peeps that don't like him breaking laws...the constitution have a (D) after their name.

Reagan says fuck off.

^ typical

Yeah, it's like everyone, everywhere, thinks what you said is stupid and gives the same answers over and over wondering why you can't get it though your head.

Carry on.

You think its fine to break laws as long as its your Messiah. I don't.

At least some Dems stand on principle.

You thought it was fine to break the law when it was your messiah.

I think it's fine either way if the executive branch needs help they may hire people to perform tasks that fall within their realm of responsibility.

I do not think drugs or education or safety in schools or cleaning up masturbation are the role of the executive branch, but we libertarians get ignored by Republicans when they're in power so hey, go fuck yourself.

I don't have a messiah, 1, and what laws did Bush, I'm assuming thats who you are talking about, break(2)?

Dems and Repubs agree that anything to do with policy has be done by peeps that have been aproved by the Senate. jeezas, i have to teach y'all everything.

Talking about Reagan.

Czars only need Senate approval if they carry power outside the administration. Otherwise the White House Chef would be the food czar.

Wrong...Czars are fine as long as they don't have anything to do with policy. If it has to do with policy, use you cabinet peep, or whatever the fuck they're called, that has been aproved by the Senate.

Whatshertoes negotiated some fuckin thing with the Auto Industry. WRONG!

But its ok, its the Messiah.

They can negotiate anything they want so long as they don't bring power to the process. They can't render a decision or regulation establishing or altering Americans' legal obligations. They can talk to whomever they want.

Drug czar makes decisions of policy. Drug czar needs vote. That's what the supreme court says. But I don't think you guys believe in 3 tiers of govt.

But they did bring power to the process.

DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUDE quit watching MSNBC!

What power? What could they legislate there? Did they sign off on the money or deliver it in a suitcase?

EPA head signs something, you have to follow it. These people have nothing. I know you want to believe it, it gives you a reason to have this thread, but you're wrong. Bush could have them, Reagan could have them, Obama can have them.

They shouldn't, but they can.

Czars are fine, they just shouldn't be setting the policy of this country. If the Messiah wants his Czars he can have them. But Dems and Repubs agree, his Czars are doing things his cabinet peeps should. Peeps that have been vetted by the Senate.

If you don't like the constitution, change it.

The Cabinet as we know it today comes from the tradition of George Washington, NOT the Constitution.

The way the Constitution figures in here is fuzzy. Quite literally, every officer of the U.S. could conceivably face an individual up/down vote by the Senate. In practice, Congress delegated vast chunks of authority in this regard to the President, for all sorts of practical reasons, as permitted by the Constitution.

http://feingold.senate.gov/pdf/ltr_100509_czars.pdf

Ok so some Lawyer Obama just fired give some boiler plate bull in response, but we all know (but some choose to let it slide) that peeps running the country should be vetted by the Senate...you know Senate confirmation hearings.

Look all anyone seems to be trying to do is help Barack out a little bit. I mean he had a communist as a Czar until he was exposed and fired. Let the Senate do their thing.

Seriously, the arrogance of Obama is telling in this case too.

LOL @ "running the country". All executive powers are reserved to the president, end of story.

^ So typical.

Ok so some Lawyer Obama just fired
Hmmm... doesn't seem fired to me. The constitutional opinion there is sound, regardless of who wrote it. Object to czars all you want, but citing the Constitution as the rationale is butt droppings.


give some boiler plate bull in response, but we all know (but some choose to let it slide) that peeps running the country should be vetted by the Senate...you know Senate confirmation hearings.
The "we all know" principle isn't Constitutional. <laughs>

The reality is that the cabinet positions are largely figureheads, and that was established early on. I realize that you were only in your teens when Andrew Jackson had his Kitchen Cabinet, but surely you learned something of how kitchen cabinets worked as you went to general contractor school, right? ;)


Look all anyone seems to be trying to do is help Barack out a little bit. I mean he had a communist as a Czar until he was exposed and fired. Let the Senate do their thing.

Seriously, the arrogance of Obama is telling in this case too.
The issues here are standard matrix-management crap. Where do vertical functionaries (czars, special investigators, etc.) fit within a horizontal management structure? Where should they fit? Instead of asking the President, Congress could certainly adopt the "if I want your opinion, I'll tell it to you" approach... pass some laws and shit to better codify the Cabinet and set boundaries from there.

From what I read, Craig was fired cuz he didn't carry out the "I'm going to close GITMO in one year" pledge. If not, I stand corrected.

Anyway, Mxy, I'm going with Dems and Repubs and the interviews I've seen on this. You can write these posts but setting policy, negotiating policy in this country is to be done by peeps that were confimed/aproved whatever you want to call it by the Senate.

Its amazing the lengths peeps will go to defend this guy.

Its amazing the lengths peeps will go to defend this guy.

Would you rather have a guy worthy of defending or a guy that everyone runs from?

And when I mean "you" I don't really mean "you" because we all know your answer to that question.

I don't think it matters. If what you (^same) are doing is wrong, call him on it, regardless of your examples.

From what I read, Craig was fired cuz he didn't carry out the "I'm going to close GITMO in one year" pledge. If not, I stand corrected.

Anyway, Mxy, I'm going with Dems and Repubs and the interviews I've seen on this. You can write these posts but setting policy, negotiating policy in this country is to be done by peeps that were confimed/aproved whatever you want to call it by the Senate.

Its amazing the lengths peeps will go to defend this guy.

Yes Mxy, your use of things like "history", "logic", "evidence" and "criteria" mean nothing. All pale in comparison to "shit I've seen on TV."

Yes Mxy, your use of things like "history", "logic", "evidence" and "criteria" mean nothing. All pale in comparison to "shit I've seen on TV."

All of which were cited by Dems and Repubs on TV.

But carry on with your defense of the defenseless.

And when y'all get time, I'd like to see you defend the white house' counting of jobs created/saved. Hilarious.

From what I read, Craig was fired cuz he didn't carry out the "I'm going to close GITMO in one year" pledge. If not, I stand corrected.
He's in trouble, but still has the job.


Anyway, Mxy, I'm going with Dems and Repubs and the interviews I've seen on this. You can write these posts but setting policy, negotiating policy in this country is to be done by peeps that were confimed/aproved whatever you want to call it by the Senate.
I'm writing posts because I think y'all are confused. I don't give a fuck what the pundit or politico class says... it's fundamentally a matter of law.

Lots of people determine policy. 99.9% of them are appointed or hired. The Senate only votes on a very few people who adjucate parts of policy, and a lot of their overall authority to impose policy comes not from any particular Cabinet position, but from the President. Why? 'cause that's what the laws say. Note that Cabinet members aren't in anyone's critical path, which is how departments operate even when it takes the Senate months to confirm someone. A lot of effective government operates in _spite_ of who happens to be on top this week.


Its amazing the lengths peeps will go to defend this guy.
I'm defending the ability of a President to appoint "czars". I don't think I ever opposed Bush's ability to do the same. (I probably opposed most of Bush's specific choices, but that's not the same thing.)

He's in trouble, but still has the job.

gotcha


I'm writing posts because I think y'all are confused. I don't give a fuck what the pundit or politico class says... it's fundamentally a matter of law.

Y'all??? I'm one lone voice in this sea of liberalism. :) I don't consider Snowe or Feingold, Byrd to be far right peeps or pundits and I agree with them. I think it was Feingold, btw.

Lots of people determine policy. 99.9% of them are appointed or hired. The Senate only votes on a very few people who adjucate parts of policy, and a lot of their overall authority to impose policy comes not from any particular Cabinet position, but from the President. Why? 'cause that's what the laws say. Note that Cabinet members aren't in anyone's critical path, which is how departments operate even when it takes the Senate months to confirm someone. A lot of effective government operates in _spite_ of who happens to be on top this week.


I'm defending the ability of a President to appoint "czars". I don't think I ever opposed Bush's ability to do the same. (I probably opposed most of Bush's specific choices, but that's not the same thing.)

We agree. I don't have problems with Czars either, just when they are taking the responsibilities of peeps that have been aproved by the Senate.

Most of the Cabinet peeps that have been approved by the Senate have no real responsibilities. It's different when you're talking foreign service folks, judges, the financial "fourth branch", etc., but the President's executive team is as powerful or powerless as the President wants them to be. That's been well established for a couple centuries now. If the Senate really wants things to be different here, then they should work with the House to refine the laws.

Look Carol Browner (?) negotiated with the Auto Industry the emissions standards instead of the Senate confirmed head of the EPA. Y'all can keep you head in the sand all you want though.

It wasn't anyone but the Messiah that ran on the pledge of 'transparency' and 'increased accountablility'. So when Senators ask for a couple of his Czars to come before a hearing explaining their roles in the admin and the Admin doesn't do it, it shows his complete arrogance.

Look Carol Browner (?) negotiated with the Auto Industry the emissions standards instead of the Senate confirmed head of the EPA. Y'all can keep you head in the sand all you want though.
She coordinated between the EPA, Department of Energy, Transportation, and Interior (involving regulations at loggerheads with each other) so that negotiations between California and the auto makers (which started before Obama was elected) could come to completion. No one Department owned the issues... air is EPA, gas is DOE, autos are DOT, etc. -- exactly the kind of situation that led Obama to appoint a "Climate Czar". Subsequently, the fed modeled federal guidelines after the California ones, but reportedly that had to do with sidestepping the 13 other states trying to poke at the auto makers, not with Browner.

I'm not saying that this notion of "czars" is necessarily a good thing. I'm saying that it's a legal thing. They've been around in various forms since the dawn of our nation.


It wasn't anyone but the Messiah that ran on the pledge of 'transparency' and 'increased accountablility'. So when Senators ask for a couple of his Czars to come before a hearing explaining their roles in the admin and the Admin doesn't do it, it shows his complete arrogance.
After 200 years, you'd think Congress would either do something or not. Hearings? Bah. If they perceive they can fix some structural problem, by all means fix it. Shit or get off the pot.