Poetse makes a great deal about Obama's appointment of people to act as Czar's over a number of initiatives, and while he acts as if it is something new in American politics their history goes a long way back and I doubt that he can support his contention that they are illegal.
Re: "czar's", Obama isn't the first (by far) to appoint them
August 17 2009, 1:18 PM
Ron, sorry, but those examples are pretty lame. The only "czars" actually appointed in recent history were one or two special positions intrinsic to the administration's pet projects...the drug czar and the energy czar for example. It is a word not meant to be used for every cabinet or department post. The widespread use of "czar" by Obama IS extraordinary, and just by having to defend it, proves it.
~~life isn't about how to survive the storm but how to dance in the rain~~
Re: "czar's", Obama isn't the first (by far) to appoint them
August 17 2009, 1:49 PM
Susan, there is no need to defend Obama, he isn't doing anything that Presidents in the past haven't done, he is simply doing it to a greater degree than his predecessors.
Re: "czar's", Obama isn't the first (by far) to appoint them
August 17 2009, 2:03 PM
Susan, there is no need to defend Obama, he isn't doing anything that Presidents in the past haven't done, he is simply doing it to a greater degree than his predecessors.
Sowhich president fired a CEO?
Which president made the government a major shareholder in GM?
Whnich President told car dealears they would have to close their dealierships?
Re: "czar's", Obama isn't the first (by far) to appoint them
August 17 2009, 3:46 PM
from the mind of Poetse:
Anyone who is as intelligent as Jim should know that czars are not constitutional. they are people who are neither elected nor responsible to the people.
That in itself should be enough to let every American know that the Republ;ic does not belong to the people. Simply stated, it is the liberals who sc4ewed the people and the system.
So call me evil for stating the truth.
*************************
poetse; Those incapable of lerning never made it to the third dauy of class.
AJC; The students must have been relieved to get a replacement teacher on the third day.
Re: "czar's", Obama isn't the first (by far) to appoint them
August 17 2009, 5:47 PM
from the mind of Poetse:
Anyone who is as intelligent as Jim should know that czars are not constitutional. they are people who are neither elected nor responsible to the people.
That in itself should be enough to let every American know that the Republ;ic does not belong to the people. Simply stated, it is the liberals who sc4ewed the people and the system.
So call me evil for stating the truth.
Thanks, CJ, you finally quoted an intelligent source. Much better than that usual crap you post.
=====================================
Since opinions are meaningless, why should anyone have one?
But have you ever seen a liberal who doesn't have an opinion? And since he has an opinion, yours must be wrong.
Re: "czar's", Obama isn't the first (by far) to appoint them
August 17 2009, 6:02 PM
It is on topic and it shoots your arguments straight to hell.
No it is not, and no it does not. I said nothing in my opening post about anything except that Presidents have appointed Czar's to head various initiatives for a long time, how they performed or what else the Presidents have done is never mentioned. You have said that his appointment of Czar's is illegal and I have said that I doubt you can prove it. Some of their actions may be illegal in your point of view but that does not mean that their appointments have been illegal. If you want to start your own thread concerning those actions you believe are illegal do so but that is not the topic of this thread.
Re: "czar's", Obama isn't the first (by far) to appoint them
August 17 2009, 6:25 PM
You are not on topic either, Jay, but I do understand your dismay at some of his selections. Problem is finding perfect people, perhaps you should apply for a position. I'm not happy with a lot that I have seen out of Obama so far including the naming of so many "czar's" or of some of the people he has named, I just don't think they are any worse than former Presidential appointments to various things. I don't think I really need to name names, I'm sure you can think of some of your own.
Re: "czar's", Obama isn't the first (by far) to appoint them
August 17 2009, 9:03 PM
I'm not getting this idea that appointing "czars" is "unConstitutional"? How exactly is it unConstitutional?
Presidents have been doing this sort of thing since at least Nixon. According to the Constitution, the President is in charge of the Executive Branch, and except for Cabinet Secretaries, Amabassadors, Judges, and Officers of the Military, the Senate is silent on other appointments. [of course under GWB, and the "unitary executive" philosophy, anything the CoC did during a time of war was, by definition, Constitutional.. did you ever complain about that?]
If such appointments were unConstitutional, I would have expected a legal challenge long before now, why has that not occured? Additionally, Congress could refuse to fund the activities of a "czar" and thereby make the issue moot.
Which president made the government a major shareholder in GM?
MAJOR? Please show proof of that allegation.
Whnich[sic]President told car dealears[sic]they would have to close their dealierships?[sic]
None that I know of.
So where does Obama get his authority top appopiont [sic] czars?
From NIXON, apparently...who appointed the very FIRST "czar". It is just a title, you morons.......and ALL presidents have the right to APPOINT however many of their advisors that they wish.
Re: "czar's", Obama isn't the first (by far) to appoint them
August 17 2009, 10:03 PM
Of course and firing the CEO of a corporation and making the government the majority stockholder and shafting the bonholders is just what you liberals love.
It's pure government control and you can;'t think for yourselves; therefore, you let big government do your thinking for you.
=====================================
Since opinions are meaningless, why should anyone have one?
But have you ever seen a liberal who doesn't have an opinion? And since he has an opinion, yours must be wrong.
Re: "czar's", Obama isn't the first (by far) to appoint them
August 17 2009, 11:32 PM
LOL!
Janie, you goofed big time. Score yet another one for Susan.
Not only that, you are way out of the mainstream.
PRINCETON, NJ -- A new Gallup Poll, conducted June 9-10, finds 55% of Americans saying they disapprove of the government's investing $50 billion in General Motors to make the government the majority owner of that automaker.
Re: "czar's", Obama isn't the first (by far) to appoint them
August 17 2009, 11:53 PM
Whnich[sic]President told car dealears[sic]they would have to close their dealierships?[sic]
None that I know of.
And since you brought it to the forefront that you DON'T know...Obama's "task force" did outline the stipulations of the bankruptcies, which DID demand the closing of many dealerships...a task normally handled by the BK courts. ~sigh~
And your little [sic] indications are just lame.
~~life isn't about how to survive the storm but how to dance in the rain~~
Re: "czar's", Obama isn't the first (by far) to appoint them
August 18 2009, 7:28 AM
from the mind of Poetse:
So cjgrill, did you not have a comment of your own to make?
Just wanted to reiterate the fact that once again, poetse the educator, goes off topic. I could of course be like you Susan and simply go all "pit bull" on poetse and attack him and maybe even call him a troll.
Re: "czar's", Obama isn't the first (by far) to appoint them
August 18 2009, 12:35 PM
he isn't doing anything that Presidents in the past haven't done, he is simply doing it to a greater degree than his predecessors.
------------
At what point would you consider it to become excessive? I once checked on this and IIRC Bush had a total of 4 Czars. Obama is, at last count, around 36.
Also, what about checks and balances? The czars work and report within the executive umbrella, some of them working/reporting directly to the president, and none of them are answerable to the other two branches. Do you have any issues with that?
For the record, I took issue with Bush czars, too, and he had far less. I found them and still find them to be working under the table, out of the reach of control, well, except for controls/orders issued by the president or person in the exec they report to. But, they all ultimately report to Obama. I didn't like it before, I like it less now because there are many more of them. JMO
Re: "czar's", Obama isn't the first (by far) to appoint them
August 18 2009, 2:00 PM
Did you read the entire thread, Inka?
Re: "czar's", Obama isn't the first (by far) to appoint them
August 17 2009, 6:25 PM
You are not on topic either, Jay, but I do understand your dismay at some of his selections. Problem is finding perfect people, perhaps you should apply for a position. I'm not happy with a lot that I have seen out of Obama so far including the naming of so many "czar's" or of some of the people he has named, I just don't think they are any worse than former Presidential appointments to various things. I don't think I really need to name names, I'm sure you can think of some of your own.
Re: "czar's", Obama isn't the first (by far) to appoint them
August 18 2009, 3:53 PM
Why don't you prove your allegation that the appointment of czar's is illegal, poetse? You keep saying that it's true even though there is a long history of them in US history.
BTW.....since when is it "unConstitutional" for any President to appoint advisors or heads of departments in the Executive branch?
ANSWER......it is NOT "unConstitutional" in any way.
There are upward of 20 such top officials, all with lengthy official titles but known in the media as czars, and next week there will be one more, when Obama appoints a czar for cyber-security who will be charged with improving the security of computer networks.
Re: "czar's", Obama isn't the first (by far) to appoint them
August 18 2009, 9:44 PM
Just trying to ligten the mood. You really should have a little fun there, potsy. Did you party at all during your college years or were you a stick in the mud then too?
IMO... poetse never attended a university for more than one semester. He may have been a substitute teacher for a few days or maybe even weeks but I cannot believe he ever graduated from an accredited University.
*************************
poetse; Those incapable of lerning never made it to the third dauy of class.
AJC; The students must have been relieved to get a replacement teacher on the third day.
Re: "czar's", Obama isn't the first (by far) to appoint them
August 18 2009, 10:18 PM
Anyway, if you want to be serious then, czar is just a term the used by the media to refer to appointed executive branch officials for over 60 years. What's the big deal?
This message has been edited by mooncat60 on Aug 18, 2009 10:18 PM
Re: "czar's", Obama isn't the first (by far) to appoint them
August 18 2009, 10:42 PM
Anyway, if you want to be serious then, czar is just a term the used by the media to refer to appointed executive branch officials for over 60 years. What's the big deal?
Well you quasi made the point. The media may have referred to them, but Obama is actually building an entire regime of "czars". It is a big deal to some people. Why is that a problem? I would imagine it would be a pretty big deal if Bush would have appointed the "prior of energy", or the "bishop of education".
~~life isn't about how to survive the storm but how to dance in the rain~~
Re: "czar's", Obama isn't the first (by far) to appoint them
August 18 2009, 10:43 PM
Anyway, if you want to be serious then, czar is just a term the used by the media to refer to appointed executive branch officials for over 60 years. What's the big deal?
Czars have power to contol the lives of many people. They fired CEO's, set salaries, close dealerships and run the lives of people.
Therefore, they have no accountablility to Congress or the people. They can destroy at will anyone they choose. Pretty big deal.
=====================================
Since opinions are meaningless, why should anyone have one?
But have you ever seen a liberal who doesn't have an opinion? And since he has an opinion, yours must be wrong.
Re: "czar's", Obama isn't the first (by far) to appoint them
August 18 2009, 10:45 PM
Well you quasi made the point. The media may have referred to them, but Obama is actually building an entire regime of "czars". It is a big deal to some people. Why is that a problem? I would imagine it would be a pretty big deal if Bush would have appointed the "prior of energy", or the "bishop of education".
*************************************
good point. He did. We just didn't have the right labels to apply until you spoke them.
...is that every President can APPOINT heads of executive branch offices (and has), and if the MEDIA wishes to call them "czars", that's their problem...not the President's. It is perfectly CONSTITUTIONAL, too...and we have proven that to you.
This message has been edited by pphhrogg on Aug 18, 2009 11:21 PM
Re: "czar's", Obama isn't the first (by far) to appoint them
August 19 2009, 12:49 AM
Some of the appointmets by Geoge W. Bush
AIDS Czar-Director of the Office of National AIDS Policy 2001-2006 Global AIDS Czar-United States Global AIDS Coordinator 2003-2009 Bank Bailout Czar-Assistant Secretary of Treasury for Financial Stability 2008 to present Cyber Czar-Head of National Cyber Security Center 2008-2009 Food Safety Czar-Assistant Commissioner for Food Protection 2007 Hurricane Katrina Recovery Czar-Federal Coordinator of Hurricane Katrina Recovery Effort 2005 Regulatory Czar- Office of Management and Budget 2003 & 2007
Re: "czar's", Obama isn't the first (by far) to appoint them
August 19 2009, 10:30 AM
Nope
August 18 2009, 6:12 PM
Obama is, at last count, around 36.
INCORRECT.
BTW.....since when is it "unConstitutional" for any President to appoint advisors or heads of departments in the Executive branch?
ANSWER......it is NOT "unConstitutional" in any way.
There are upward of 20 such top officials, all with lengthy official titles but known in the media as czars, and next week there will be one more, when Obama appoints a czar for cyber-security who will be charged with improving the security of computer networks.
The Reuters article you present is dated May 29. We are nearly three months past that date and there have been additional appointments made since.
I have not in this thread, nor any other, said that Czars are unconstitutional, regardless of who is president. But, I do think there can be issues down the road with these positions that should at least be run by congress and approved on record, instead of them just ignoring what's being done as if they have no say in it.
I have merely attempted to state that there are, to date, 36, or so, Czars in the Obama admin. And, I compare that number to the far fewer in the previous (Bush) admininstration. And, I asked at what point does it become excessive? Do you, or anyone else, have any thoughts on that?
I will say that had these 36 Czars been appointed by another president, you, along with many of the rest, would be bitching up a storm. Just because it's Obama, you seem to be condoning this. But you would not normally condone it for others, at least to this degree of, imo, excessiveness, as compared to past presidential appointee power.
You do realize that IF there are serious issues down the road within these Czar-named functions and/or their depts, that Obama could invoke executive privilege and keep these 'appointed' individuals from testifying (answering) to Congress, among other things, don't you? And, I do remember the reactions to Bush invoking executive privilege....WE, as I recall, were against it on every occurence.
Some of you have certainly 'changed'....and not for the better, imo.
