GOP votes to dethrone Obama's policy 'czars'

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

obviously it is to some.

Here's what it really is:

[Ban Hammer 12,835]

Here's what it really is:

of course, that's what i'd expect someone to say when obama's been adding to the que "bush had some too!"

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

of course, that's what i'd expect someone to say when obama's been adding to the que "bush had some too!"

Missing the point, Chuck. The question as to what triggered the outrage remains unanswered. Well, we both know the answer but you just can't get yourself to admit it.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

De-funding continues! Elections mean things.

[Ban Hammer 12,835]

Missing the point, Chuck. The question as to what triggered the outrage remains unanswered. Well, we both know the answer but you just can't get yourself to admit it.

i'm not the one missing the point that adding more is no reason to be upset just because obama is in office.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

i'm not the one missing the point that adding more is no reason to be upset just because obama is in office.

You're a lost cause, Chuck. When adding almost 300% of czar positions is taken silently, then the rage over a mere 10% increase in such posts cannot be seen as anything but utter hypocrisy. Of course, you know that but you still can't get yourself to admit it. It's okay. You're still one of my favorite Republicans.

[Ban Hammer 12,835]

You're a lost cause, Chuck. When adding almost 300% of czar positions is taken silently, then the rage over a mere 10% increase in such posts cannot be seen as anything but utter hypocrisy. Of course, you know that but you still can't get yourself to admit it. It's okay. You're still one of my favorite Republicans.

i know when someone won't admit trees live in the forest, no matter what their eyes see. and from what i've seen, 10% is a bit low of a number - refer to sog's glen beck link and count them.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

i know when someone won't admit trees live in the forest, no matter what their eyes see. and from what i've seen, 10% is a bit low of a number - refer to sog's glen beck link and count them.

Math troubles, too? See, if you go off Beck's numbers, the increase is 2 (35 vs. 33) which is less than 10%. 6% to be precise. So, 10% would then be a bit high of a number rather than a bit low of a number. Doesn't your computer have a calculator built in? Check it out.

[Ban Hammer 12,835]

Math troubles, too? See, if you go off Beck's numbers, the increase is 2 (35 vs. 33) which is less than 10%. 6% to be precise. So, 10% would then be a bit high of a number rather than a bit low of a number. Doesn't your computer have a calculator built in? Check it out.

so glen beck's numbers don't match with yours. imagine that. and i can do percentages quite well, ty.

i do suspect it will be a cold day in hades before a democrat says government is getting too big.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

so glen beck's numbers don't match with yours. imagine that. and i can do percentages quite well, ty.

i do suspect it will be a cold day in hades before a democrat says government is getting too big.

Dude, Beck is claiming Obama has 35 czars. I say he's got 37 - which is the accurate number. Beck might not be capable of counting past 35 - I don't know and I don't care. Either way, he's got it wrong - which isn't all that surprising. Anyway, if we're talking about an increase in the number of czars, I am conceding more of an increase (4 or 12%) than Beck would suggest (2 or 6%). So the increase I conceded is twice that which you cling on to. And either increase is nothing compare to the almost 300% increase W afforded himself which left the GOP which is oh so concerned about the growing size of government all cold. What gives?

Edited February 19, 2011 by Mr. Big Dog

[Pooky 3,347]

Bush ... Obama ...

Legislating with unelected appointees needs to go. I don't care which party is in the White House, governing needs to be about accountability, and these policy "czars" run counter to that.

It's rather like the European Union commissioners, who have most of the power, versus the European Parliament, who make lots of noise but appear basically powerless.

Legislators need to be be elected by the people and accountable to their electorate, whichever political colour they might be.

[Ban Hammer 12,835]

Dude, Beck is claiming Obama has 35 czars. I say he's got 37 - which is the accurate number. Beck might not be capable of counting past 35 - I don't know and I don't care. Either way, he's got it wrong - which isn't all that surprising. Anyway, if we're talking about an increase in the number of czars, I am conceding more of an increase (4 or 12%) than Beck would suggest (2 or 6%). So the increase I conceded is twice that which you cling on to. And either increase is nothing compare to the almost 300% increase W afforded himself which left the GOP which is oh so concerned about the growing size of government all cold. What gives?

i'm not clinging to anything - we don't need czars. you seem to be the one defending them with the oh it's not that much more attitude.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

33 vs. 37 - it's not as dramatic a change as they now want to make it appear.

Hypocrisy is fun. Apparently

It's much the same as the outrage over $20 million odd of no-bid contracts awarded by Obama versus the billions awarded by bush/cheney

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

i'm not clinging to anything - we don't need czars. you seem to be the one defending them with the oh it's not that much more attitude.

Oh boy... late night for you last night was it?

Seriously, he hasn't said anything about czars. His point is that this story has been cooked up for dishonest, partisan reasons. If you are outraged about czars now, we're you outraged when bush nearly tripled clinton's total?

[Ban Hammer 12,835]

Oh boy... late night for you last night was it?

Seriously, he hasn't said anything about czars. His point is that this story has been cooked up for dishonest, partisan reasons. If you are outraged about czars now, we're you outraged when bush nearly tripled clinton's total?

that's nice you think that. and you're still wrong.