Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And I don't understand the wingnuts complaining about something Obama's doing, while they were completely silent when Bush engaged in the same practice.
The appointment of czars is just one example.
Yea, both sides are pretty F'd up, our government is in the process of destroying itself, it is nothing more than a self serving entity at this point, but they let us think our vote counts for something.
I'll be the first to admit, Bush was a crummy president, 0bama is no better.
Maybe they weren't aware that these appointments and positions were Unconstitutional then. Now that some are aware of the relevant Constitutional material regarding this practice, it is clear that Bush is as guilty as Obama (as well as many other Presidents). I wonder if these Presidents were aware that they were overstepping their power, read breaking the law, and if there is any punishment for doing so.
Isn't making the claim that "Bush did it" just the same partisanship, or was Bush as good a Pres as 0bama?
No. I can't understand why you can't follow a simple idea. Pointing out partisanship is not partisanship. Pointing out racism is not racism. Pointing out stupidity is not stupid.
And Bush absolutely sucked. President Obama is pretty good.
Look at the long list of czars that have skirted confirmation. Compare to Bush's czars. That is really the point - the number of czars obama has that don't have to go throught the rigorous process of confirmation - and we know why, don't we?
How many of those "radicals" would pass muster with the senate and the public?
These days presidents make some 2000 appointements and the senate will scutinize only a fraction of them. They scutinze the ones who hold an important enough / senior enough position. How many of the 2000 Bush nominated, were srcitinized by senate? Very few. And many nominations don't even need senate approval, Instead they are simply nominated. I do not see Bush's Agriculture czar on the list. He was a person who Bush Sr tied to have as his Secretary of Agriculture, but the Senate rejected him, so Bush Jr nominated him as his Agriculture Czar. That position was unimportant enough to not require senate approval.
It is easier to review the list of these appointments than it is to categorize. The administrative jobs number something over 500. These appointments vary in their type and nature and are usually a result of the legislation which created the position because the Congress wanted some say in who was to be appointed.
No. I can't understand why you can't follow a simple idea. Pointing out partisanship is not partisanship. Pointing out racism is not racism. Pointing out stupidity is not stupid.
And Bush absolutely sucked. President Obama is pretty good.
Therefore, what Bush did was sucky, right? So if 0bama does it, he must be just as sucky.
Maybe they weren't aware that these appointments and positions were Unconstitutional then. Now that some are aware of the relevant Constitutional material regarding this practice, it is clear that Bush is as guilty as Obama (as well as many other Presidents). I wonder if these Presidents were aware that they were overstepping their power, read breaking the law, and if there is any punishment for doing so.
I see. At least 6 presidents in a row have been breaking the law, and nobody cared. Now that President Obama has an army of crazy wingnuts in a concerted attack based on the most laughably stupid issues ever (birthers, deathers, teleprompters, speeches to schoolkids, etc), and lead by a certifiable fruitcake (Beck) - now it's obvious to a commenter on an internet forum that the practice is unconstitutional.
According to your blog which quoted wikipedia which also points out that Bush had less czars than Obama... which makes your foundation incorrect but I do see the point that Czar appointments really took off during the Bush years... Knowing that Bush was a horrible president, are you suggesting that Obama will be a horrible president as well by following Bush's footsteps? Cause that is what you are implying... in history (with Wikipedia, most of the time there weren't many czars... its been abused by Bush which is continued by Obama... the abuse has got to end and I suppose you wouldn't care if the next Repub president appoints a thousand czars cause Obama appointed a lot too.. right? Get off your hypocrisy... and FYI, those who oppose Obama's socialist policies don't like Bush either... but you liberals keep spreading the disinformation, shall we?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
