Just saw this:
Awesome! No more proof needed that he is Grand Cyclops of the Tinfoil Brigade.
Epic Seduction Fail. Try to read her thoughts of him on her face.
Glenn Beck screaming like a girl getting dumped by the Jonas Brothers. Starts at 3:38 for the preliminary screams but the epic yell comes at 3:52. It's really worth watching from the beginning.
Beck finally meets his master ... or rather mistress. Hard to believe but it's possible to outcrazy even him. Michele Bachmann's insane ramblings are too much even for Beck.
Most other polls put the president in the low to mid 50's in approval. Which is just fine. In fact its about equal to President Bush's approval ratings just before 9/11, and President Bush did not have an inherited tanking economy to deal with.
That was why I offered counter point instead of numbers. Polls aside, simply applying common sense and logic, this regime is pure fail. It's czar and feathers.
And FYI, Obama didn't have a 9/11 to deal with. Bush was in lose/lose situation. He did the best he could. He kept this country damn safe.
And how long are the left going to use that "inherited economy" excuse? Is that why he keeps spending completely insane amounts of money? Pfft. Nice logic.
By big R I mean Republican, and I said "mostly".
Here we have John Conyers saying "reading bills is hard". Well yes John but thats why you get paid the big bucks.
Sadly, most congresspeople do not read the bills they vote for (ie Patriot Act), they just take others words for it.
Anyhow, they have had MONTHS to read and digest the bill proposals now, and anyone who can't do that is incompetant regardless of party affiliation.
Now you're getting the point.
I read your long post. I saw very little "common sense" and "logic". Mostly I saw opinions and fear. I could address it point by point but it is hard to find coherent points to address. You decided to paraphrase Obama saying "the war on terror is over" but he has never ever said anything close to that. You presented the president as wanting increased troop levels in Afghanistan as some sort of contradiction, however he has been saying that the war in Afghanistan needed more troops since the Democratic primaries.
Oh scary Czars! Czars are bad! Surely Nixon, Reagan, Bush 1, Bush 2 did not use Czars.
The fact that even one poll says 42% should be cause for concern to any current admin partisan.
Hell even Bob Beckell is starting to have doubts.
btw.. i don't see on record that any past admin had THIRTY THREE Czars.
No I understand the point. Incompetance is there on every level of society. Some are incompetant some aren't. It does not mean we should abolish government programs or not try to establish new ones for fear of incompetance.
There are many many lawmakers who are great, who are very competant, who are very intelligent. It is up to us to weed out the bad ones through votes and political action.
No the fact that one poll says 42% and the rest are completely different should be the opposite of cause of concern, it is cause for dismissal. It is an OUTLIER. I do not know how much statistical knowledge you have, but if you do not understand why it should be dismissed then please take the time to understand statistical analysis.
33 Czars = bad? 33 Czars = scary? Please explain why 10 is good, or 20 is good, but once you have 33 you've crossed into super scary Beck land.
This is typical, but I was expecting more than this. Becoming defensive by going offensive. You try to belittle a point to make yours seem valid. That doesn't fly.
You may want to do a little research. Obama rode his candidacy on the back of ending the war.
So by your logic, the big R's screwed everything up. Since they employed 2, 5, 10 czars, let's just multiply that out so we have 30+ now. Since it did NOT work before. Makes sense to me. Sounds like the same logic he is using on the economy.
No one ever said even 1 czar was acceptable. But 33 is yes, downright scary.
No, what I want from you is some reason that Czars are bad. Please explain to me why.
As to point number 2, you might want to do a little research, Obama rode his candidacy on the back of ending the war in IRAQ. He has always always always spoke for a returned focus to the war on Afghanistan. I followed the election very closely and at every opportunity he said there needs to be a withdrawl from Iraq and a focus on Afghanistan.
No, the big R's did not screw everything up. Nowhere did I say any number of Czars are bad. I had a question mark, it was a question. I see nothing wrong with Czars, I am asking you why they are bad.
I am patiently waiting for your reasoned explanation as to why Czars are inherently bad.
By the way, here is a link to the FIRST debate with McCain during the election with Obama saying "we need more troops in Afghanistan".
www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2jYsLwcEIY
Care to take back your comment about me needing to do a little research?
There is nothing good about putting people in places of power (potential places or otherwise) within the government when they are not elected officials. These people were not voted in and as such, do not necessarily convey the mindset of the people who elected them in.
Another aside on the polls. The 42% poll was conducted by Zogby, a person who gives his polls a notorious Republican slant. For reference, he had McCain leading Obama on election day 48-47%. He was only off by.. Oh.. About 10%.
Especially 33 people in places of power, not elected and that don't answer to the people.
wrong in so many ways.
Far as I know, no one else has even used.. 10.. let alone 33.
If you don't see something is odd about that... sorry dude.
Anyway.. by next week, there will be at least.. 1 less. You can believe whatever polls u want to...knock urself out.
Cabinet members, Supreme court judges, every single non-elected government employee from secretaries to janitors to the non-elected military members are all inherently bad?
Sorry, you will have to do better than that. Unless you think we should elect every member of the cabinet, every general in the army, every Senator assistant, and not just Czars. Did you complain when Bush created new cabinet positions? Did you complain when Bush made hundreds and hundreds of non-elected political appointments? Or has your ire been reserved for Obama?
Bush had 35 official Czar jobs and appointed 45 Czars over the term of his presidency. Where was your fear back then?
All depends where you get your figures from..
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,531363,00.html
Reagan had 2. Bush 41 had 1. Clinton had 9. Bush 43 had 12.
but for the sake of arguement.. How many of Bush’s appointees were members of radical revolutionary groups?
Self avowed communist's?
How many of them had published books on eugenics?
How many of them have expressed an interest in denying medical care to people based on age?
These people were able to be appointed because unlike Bush's czars which were all vetted by Congress and subjected to Senate confirmation, Obama's were not.
I can't WAIT to see what excuse this admin uses to throw Van Jones under the bus.
I am sorry. Did you have any discussion with me (or Styler) "back then?" What are you basing your assumption on that I did not have issues with this "back then?"
You are really falling into the Republican vs. Democrat thing pretty hard. You should probably stop that. Justifying something that is wrong with something else that is wrong does seems to be the liberal mindset, though. It's a justification that 3rd graders use when trying to get out of trouble. But this is a problem with the government OVERALL. This is not elephant or donkey. Obama is simply magnifying everything in a very short amount of time.
You are seeing my ire with Obama because he is the president and he is digging a US-sized hole and pulling the wool over America's eyes and telling them to walk straight ahead.
I guess it does depend where you get your figures from. I looked up Czars on wikipedia and checked some of the sources for Bush's Czars appointments, the ones I checked were legitimate.
Your source is Fox news, in an interview with Greta Van Sustren quoting UNCITED statistics on the fly, with no mention where she gets the numbers. I could only find 1 Reagan Czar btw.
It is really strange that you accept without question her unsupported numbers because it fits your worldview.
Quite a few. They are called Neo-Conservatives.
No evil commie pinkos that I know of were appointed by Bush.
As I am unfamiliar with the book on eugenics claim or the denying medical care by age claim, can you provide me with some context?
From what I have read about Van Jones, I am not a fan. Mostly because of the 9/11 truther thing. I could care less if he does not survive much longer as a political appointee.
I was not justifying, I was asking a question. Are you against every single government appointment from the cabinet down to the military? Do you believe that in order for something to not be inherently bad in government is must be elected? Because that seems to be your position.
A subtle insult! That is something 1st graders do when their positions cannot be explained.
First off, military personnel are not traditional government officials. And isn't it obvious that even elected government officials can be bad as well? But compound that with those bad government officials appointing people into places of power is simply foolish. To not acknowledge this is a problem is a rather naive point of view.
See there. You did it again. Going on the defensive by being offensive is not justification of a point.
Of course elected/unelected officials can be bad, it is not really the point. You seem to be missing what I am asking you entirely. What I am trying to do is find out what your position is (which you have not explained beyond "all unelected government officials are inherently bad"). What I am trying to do is find out, do you really believe that? Should every single government offical be elected? Ambassadors? Clerks? Cabinet members? Or would elections for all these officials be unwieldy, inefficient and ultimately untenable?
You see, if you stick to your guns and say all unelected positions are bad, then you must justify an alternative (which would be an absolute logistical nightmare). If you disagree with your statement that all government appointees are inherently bad, then please expand and justify it further. Why are some good and some bad. Cabinet members ok? Ambassadors ok? Czars EVIL! Why?
Uhhh, if I'm not mistaken you're the one who implied I was a 3rd grader... But yeah, I'm the one going on the offensive. For the record that particular statment was not a justification of anything, I think you are confused.
Done with this for a while.
Pick up becks book... Arguing with idiots.
Typical, when faced with justifying your position you choose to drop an insult and leave.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
