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.
I actually previously mentioned this. Please read my posts.
I not only read your post, I quoted it, and you are still wrong when you claim that the Affirmative Action President does not refer to his own advisors as "Czars."
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
Obama isn't calling them czars.
Quote:
In announcing the presence at a recent event of Office of National Drug Control Policy Director R. Gil Kerlikowske, President Obama hesitated, "...as well as our new Director of our Office of -- I always forget the full name of this thing. I call it the Drug Czar."
Source: White House Press Conference, July 17, 2009
So what lie are you going to manufacture now that you have been busted in yet another lie? Typical Obamatron Apologist, has no facts and just likes making up one lie after another.
I not only read your post, I quoted it, and you are still wrong when you claim that the Affirmative Action President does not refer to his own advisors as "Czars."
So what lie are you going to manufacture now that you have been busted in yet another lie? Typical Obamatron Apologist, has no facts and just likes making up one lie after another.
Allow me to direct you to post #75 on this thread.
While I don't expect you to have a grasp on the logic of this, a single reference to one appointee as a czar does not connotate a universal embracing of a categorization of all appointees as czars. "Typical Obamatron Apologist"---lol, I'm seriously considering changing my name on this forum. Since you and I have battled before, I'm too familiar with your sense of humor to get my panties in a twist.
Allow me to direct you to post #75 on this thread.
While I don't expect you to have a grasp on the logic of this, a single reference to one appointee as a czar does not connotate a universal embracing of a categorization of all appointees as czars. "Typical Obamatron Apologist"---lol, I'm seriously considering changing my name on this forum. Since you and I have battled before, I'm too familiar with your sense of humor to get my panties in a twist.
I quoted your post #85 where you manufactured the lie that the Affirmative Action President does not call his own appointees Czars. He obviously does, and that was just one more lie by you to deflect reality, and once again you were busted making up more lies.
He should get a deficit czar. Too bad most of these czars really have no real experience in what they are in total control of, minus a few. Obama, of course, is the ultimate czar. Takes me right back to the Romanovs...
The Romanov Dynasty began with the election of Mikhail Romanov, a 16 year old boyar, by the zemskii sobor. The Romanov family ruled Russia from 1613 to 1855 and during this time, Russia became a major European power.
Not that we will be Russia of course but the underlined is the real intentions of appointments like he has so far done. None of the career minded congress will willingly give up their oversight.
I quoted your post #85 where you manufactured the lie that the Affirmative Action President does not call his own appointees Czars. He obviously does, and that was just one more lie by you to deflect reality, and once again you were busted making up more lies.
Since you are using the plural, but have only found one appointee he's referred to as a czar, you are the one doing the manufacturing.
Since you are using the plural, but have only found one appointee he's referred to as a czar, you are the one doing the manufacturing.
Any other "lies" you'd like to call me on?
Sure. Your "claim" that you don't understand the term czar. You are being either intentionally stupid or lack the comprehension of the language and understanding of common terms.
You must be a liberal politician, what with all the ways you try to twist out of what is an obvious situation by trying to change definitions to suit yourself. You lie when you claim otherwise.
Of course, you will lie about whether this is true as well.
Sure. Your "claim" that you don't understand the term czar. You are being either intentionally stupid or lack the comprehension of the language and understanding of common terms.
You must be a liberal politician, what with all the ways you try to twist out of what is an obvious situation by trying to change definitions to suit yourself. You lie when you claim otherwise.
Of course, you will lie about whether this is true as well.
I didn't claim that I didn't have a perception about the term "czar". I only asked that you explain how you are using the word so that we would be on the same page. I'm not a liberal politician, and I'm not lying. All I'm asking for is that you explain how you are defining the term in this context, so that we'll all understand it.
I wanted to make sure I understood YOU. And you've been beating me up for asking you to explain yourself.
It is an accurate term in the true definition sense. There is no argument in how much power they have and it's not a term that is absolute power like in terms of the Russian czars like the Romanovs.
Is it true that there is a Czar czar position being consdered to help keep track of the czars?
Rush Limbaugh's czars are the Fox News propoganda meisters...I mean, reporters.
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.
