Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-21-2009, 02:23 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,495,743 times
Reputation: 27720

Advertisements

Eric Cantor - Too Many Presidential Czars Keep Congress in the Dark - washingtonpost.com

"The biggest problems that we're facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that's what I intend to reverse when I'm president of the United States." -- Sen. Barack Obama, March 31, 2008

"To say President Obama failed to follow through on this promise is an understatement. By appointing a virtual army of "czars" -- each wholly unaccountable to Congress yet tasked with spearheading major policy efforts for the White House -- in his first six months, the president has embarked on an end-run around the legislative branch of historic proportions."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-21-2009, 02:25 PM
 
Location: Over Yonder
3,923 posts, read 3,647,284 times
Reputation: 3969
Quote:
Originally Posted by idahogie View Post
How could it be unconstitutional? "Czar" is just a word. Get over it.

What planet do you spend your time on?
Read the Constitution. Then maybe you can understand what the big deal is. No one is allowed to be given royal title in this country. Now look at the definition of the word.

Noun1.-tsar- a male monarch or emperor (especially of Russia prior to 1917) czar, tzar

crowned head, monarch, sovereign - a nation's ruler or head of state usually by hereditary right


Now go and read the Constitution. You will see why this is not OK. I don't care if you want to overlook this, it is blatantly against the rules laid down for our country in the Constitution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2009, 02:26 PM
 
Location: New Jersey
1,878 posts, read 2,064,574 times
Reputation: 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reads2MUCH View Post
I have struggled not to say this because I just don't like to generalize too much, but you people(Obama supporters) will seemingly agree with anything this man does or says. Do you not realize that it is actually in our Constitution that no one is to be granted "title" like these men possess.

And then to further downplay it by calling them "advisors" is just ridiculous. These are not advisors, these men have powers and no accountability. These men are miny despots. This is not OK. If you want to support Obama, that's fine. But atleast have the presence of mind to realize and admit when the president's activities and policies do not jive with what is good and right for this country. If you are not familiar with the Constitution, and I mean the whole thing, you really should read it, comprehend it, and love it for the beautiful document that it is. And after that reading, finally admit to yourself that this president's (and others before him) policies and actions are often a slap in the face of our free country.

The men who wrote that document inserted protections for us and our freedom. And slowly but surely, the government is overlooking those checks and balances in favor of doing "their own thing" I don't care how happy or loudly your crowd cheers, or how often you say change. If your changes do not directly correspond with procedures and rules that already exist in our Constitution, it is not good change and should not be allowed. Please, just leave your prejudices at the door for a minute, and really look at some of the things we've allowed Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr., and Reagan to do. We have not been vigilant, and we are really starting to pay the price.
Well, that about sums it up in a nice little package for the people that have a hard time understanding the ramifications of these czars.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2009, 02:26 PM
 
Location: Raleigh, NC
9,059 posts, read 12,972,786 times
Reputation: 1401
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reads2MUCH View Post
I have struggled not to say this because I just don't like to generalize too much, but you people(Obama supporters) will seemingly agree with anything this man does or says. Do you not realize that it is actually in our Constitution that no one is to be granted "title" like these men possess.

And then to further downplay it by calling them "advisors" is just ridiculous. These are not advisors, these men have powers and no accountability. These men are miny despots. This is not OK. If you want to support Obama, that's fine. But atleast have the presence of mind to realize and admit when the president's activities and policies do not jive with what is good and right for this country. If you are not familiar with the Constitution, and I mean the whole thing, you really should read it, comprehend it, and love it for the beautiful document that it is. And after that reading, finally admit to yourself that this president's (and others before him) policies and actions are often a slap in the face of our free country.

The men who wrote that document inserted protections for us and our freedom. And slowly but surely, the government is overlooking those checks and balances in favor of doing "their own thing" I don't care how happy or loudly your crowd cheers, or how often you say change. If your changes do not directly correspond with procedures and rules that already exist in our Constitution, it is not good change and should not be allowed. Please, just leave your prejudices at the door for a minute, and really look at some of the things we've allowed Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr., and Reagan to do. We have not been vigilant, and we are really starting to pay the price.
Now that's just downright racist of you
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2009, 02:34 PM
 
Location: here
24,873 posts, read 36,176,449 times
Reputation: 32726
perhaps a little troubled that they are called "czars" but not troubled that he has them. and, no I don't think it is unconstitutional.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2009, 02:47 PM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,325 posts, read 44,950,814 times
Reputation: 7118
Quote:
I am not troubled that he has advisors.
Much, much different from his czars. Read up a bit on it, then discuss.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2009, 03:02 PM
 
Location: Idaho Falls
5,041 posts, read 6,217,651 times
Reputation: 1483
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertGibbs View Post
really? I mean really? All you can say is something about the term "czar"? Really Idahogie? Come on, I know I don't give you much credit for your points of view, but I KNOW you're smarter than this.
Trying to stay away from those big words that confuse you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2009, 03:08 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,297 posts, read 120,779,853 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
It's more than that. These people can bypass all the checks and balances built into the branches of the government.
To do what?

Quote:
It is an accumulation of power within the Executive branch over which Congress has no power. It is going the opposite way of the transparency Obama promised. It diminshes the power of Congress.
Please elaborate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cleoT View Post
A czar is more than an advisor. Much more.
How? Please elaborate

Quote:
Originally Posted by ViewFromThePeak View Post
True. Stalin was just a "premier" and Hitler was still just a "chancellor". There wasn't any REAL power behind that name.
No, there's not. If you're freaked out about "czar", which has been used by presidents since FDR, you've got a problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reads2MUCH View Post
I have struggled not to say this because I just don't like to generalize too much, but you people(Obama supporters) will seemingly agree with anything this man does or says.
Bull.

Quote:
Do you not realize that it is actually in our Constitution that no one is to be granted "title" like these men possess.
Where? Please cite words from the constitution, not from some RW website.

Quote:
And then to further downplay it by calling them "advisors" is just ridiculous. These are not advisors, these men have powers and no accountability. These men are miny despots.
What powers do they have? Are they all men? Are there no czarinas?

(Rest of quote snipped for brevity.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2009, 03:14 PM
 
Location: here
24,873 posts, read 36,176,449 times
Reputation: 32726
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reads2MUCH View Post
Read the Constitution. Then maybe you can understand what the big deal is. No one is allowed to be given royal title in this country. Now look at the definition of the word.

Noun1.-tsar- a male monarch or emperor (especially of Russia prior to 1917) czar, tzar

crowned head, monarch, sovereign - a nation's ruler or head of state usually by hereditary right


Now go and read the Constitution. You will see why this is not OK. I don't care if you want to overlook this, it is blatantly against the rules laid down for our country in the Constitution.
perhaps you should take it up with Nixon and Reagan then. From what I am reading, they were the first US presidents in recent history to appoint "czars".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2009, 03:19 PM
 
Location: Idaho Falls
5,041 posts, read 6,217,651 times
Reputation: 1483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reads2MUCH View Post
Read the Constitution. Then maybe you can understand what the big deal is. No one is allowed to be given royal title in this country. Now look at the definition of the word.

Noun1.-tsar- a male monarch or emperor (especially of Russia prior to 1917) czar, tzar

crowned head, monarch, sovereign - a nation's ruler or head of state usually by hereditary right


Now go and read the Constitution. You will see why this is not OK. I don't care if you want to overlook this, it is blatantly against the rules laid down for our country in the Constitution.
Oh, come on. Can we have grown-up talk, please?

The word czar is a short-hand term that got slapped on by media and picked up by everybody.

Nobody except dim-witted fools believe that advisors that are now called 'czars' are royalty, for god's sake. What utter stupidity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:09 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top