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.
President Obama's "safe schools czar" is a former schoolteacher who has advocated promoting homosexuality in schools, written about his past drug abuse, expressed his contempt for religion and detailed an incident in which he did not report an underage student who told him he was having sex with older men.
how about a source?
There is not a single fact in your entire post. it's all hearsay.
The term "czar" has been tossed around LONG before Obama came into office. The problem isn't with the word.
The problem is with all the people he's appointing to these positions. Call them czar, or don't. If the only defense you have of all these horribly unethical people he's finding a way to appoint without having to be cleared by Congress, is by attacking the word "czar", you have a weak argument.
Such low ranking position is not required to be approved by Congress. It was not when Bush created the position, and it is not today. Bush nominated 2000 people to their positions, and how many of them do you think were cleared by Congress? Very, very few.
For you to call him "horribly unethical" because he defended gays is a weak argument. It doesn't get much weaker than that.
This sounds like just another smear campaign and character assassination attempt by FOX.
Such low ranking position is not required to be approved by Congress. It was not when Bush created the position, and it is not today. Bush nominated 2000 people to their positions, and how many of them do you think were cleared by Congress? Very, very few.
For you to call him "horribly unethical" because he defended gays is a weak argument. It doesn't get much weaker than that.
This sounds like just another smear campaign and character assassination attempt by FOX.
yeah, smear campaign...lol I guess you are right along with these types of people. No values, no integrity, no honesty, no nothing but radical views. How about commenting on not turning a molester over to the authorities, noooooo, you go on to attack the fact that it was pointed out he promotes homosexuality. How weak.....
BTW, Congress authorized the creation of the positions Bush appointed. Not so in Obama's case, congress doesn't have a clue who these people are and what they even do. Obama took it upon himself to just appoint these people like he's the king or something.
Such low ranking position is not required to be approved by Congress. It was not when Bush created the position, and it is not today. Bush nominated 2000 people to their positions, and how many of them do you think were cleared by Congress? Very, very few.
For you to call him "horribly unethical" because he defended gays is a weak argument. It doesn't get much weaker than that.
This sounds like just another smear campaign and character assassination attempt by FOX.
I didn't call him horribly unethical because he defended gays. I have a problem with the fact that he once was told about an underage student that was having sex with an older man, and didn't report it. If it was a female student, it would have been the same to me. If you know about the sexual abuse of a child, and don't report it, you're just as guilty. Long time ago or not. That's a reflection of morals and ethics, and it should not be allowed within 50 miles of the White House. Or anywhere for that matter.
When people like this, or like Van Jones, or like any of the other tax cheats, are appointed to positions in the administration (no matter what level), this is a problem.
Why on Earth would this President be appointing people with this type of past? Either he's too stupid to research their past, knows their past and doesn't care about it, or his security detail and research crew is horribly missing the boat and letting him put these people in the administration.
BTW, Congress authorized the creation of the positions Bush appointed. Not so in Obama's case, congress doesn't have a clue who these people are and what they even do. Obama took it upon himself to just appoint these people like he's the king or something.
Well, that is simply not true. Congress approves a small fraction of presidental nominations, which numbered over 2000 during Bush presidency. Look into Bush's Argurilture Czar, who his father tried to nominate as his Secretary of Agriculture. That is a position which requires Congress approval. Well, Congress did NOT APPROVE it, so Bush Jr created a new position for him and nominated him as his Agriculture Czar. New positions do now require Congress approval. And Bush created this position we are talking about right now. He did it in 2002.
It sounds like another smear campaign to me, but at the same time I will not pretend to know everything about this guy. I don't know him, so I will wait and see. But you go ahead and jump into full attack mode as soon as FOX says something. It is the best way to end up looking foolish.
Well, that is simply not true. Congress approves a small fraction of presidental nominations, which numbered over 2000 during Bush presidency. Look into Bush's Argurilture Czar, who his father tried to nominate as his Secretary of Agriculture. That is a position which requires Congress approval. Well, Congress did NOT APPROVE it, so Bush Jr created a new position for him and nominated him as his Agriculture Czar. New positions do now require Congress approval. And Bush created this position we are talking about right now. He did it in 2002.
It sounds like another smear campaign to me, but at the same time I will not pretend to know everything about this guy. I don't know him, so I will wait and see. But you go ahead and jump into full attack mode as soon as FOX says something. It is the best way to end up looking foolish.
Using "well Bush did it" is a pathetic argument. It wasn't right then, and it isn't now.
Was the Van Jones thing a "smear campaign"? Or was it concern by Americans that a self-avowed communist was placed into a position of authority in the government?
I didn't call him horribly unethical because he defended gays. I have a problem with the fact that he once was told about an underage student that was having sex with an older man, and didn't report it.
Yes, if it is true that would be a problem. I would like to know the full details of that story.
Quote:
If it was a female student, it would have been the same to me.
The term "czar" has been tossed around LONG before Obama came into office. The problem isn't with the word.
The problem is with all the people he's appointing to these positions. Call them czar, or don't. If the only defense you have of all these horribly unethical people he's finding a way to appoint without having to be cleared by Congress, is by attacking the word "czar", you have a weak argument.
Actually, it's not that weak an argument. If you are going to use a word, then you should have a clear understanding of what it means?
What exactly makes these people "czars"?
What criteria is being used that defines some appointees as "czars" and others don't warrant that appelation?
What distinguishes "czars" from other appointees?
Are they only Presidential appointees? Then the list needs to be edited.
Does a "czar" have Presidential access? Then the list needs to be edited.
Do "czars" all have the ability to direct policy? Then the list needs to be edited.
The President isn't creating "czarships". He's asking people to do certain jobs. So when people call these jobs "czarships", they should explain what it is about the job that is so offensive to them.
The President isn't creating "czarships". He's asking people to do certain jobs. So when people call these jobs "czarships", they should explain what it is about the job that is so offensive to them.
They are driving policy and have enormous power and budgets in most cases. Like Van Jones with an $80 million dollar budget and the ability to make policy....
Without confirmation.
There is a very good reason why he doesn't want to put them through the confirmation process - they would not pass and when their radical records came out to the public, they would be withdrawn, which would definitely embarrass obama.
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.
