See....already something we can agree on

Lets just start with one simple question, and we'll work from there, depending of course on your willingness to engage?

Should we have between 28 and 32, (depending on nuances of title) Czars, who do not answer to congress, are not subject to outside vetting and approval and who in many cases have zero training or experience in the field they are now supervising?

No need to mention Beck, or even my education...just your answer?

You're wasting your time trying to get those three mouthbreathers to be responsive to anything of substance. I hate to say it, but I think they are unable to detach from the party teat long enough to create an original thought. There are really only the three of them, and its interesting how much distraction from real USA Chat discussion they are responsible for by making outrageous, albeit humorously frightening, comments.

That's interesting, and pretty simple too.

I was somewhat concerned about these so-called "czars" back when they were being touted during previous administrations.(Don't be disappointed to find out they are merely coordinators or secretaries.)

Clinton appointed an AIDS Czar. GW appointed a Drug Czar and a Cybersecurity Czar, a Regulatory Czar and an AIDS Czar, also a Faith-based Czar. Bush also appointed a Manufacturing Czar, a Katrina Czar, a Bird Flu Czar, an Intelligence Czar, a Copyright Czar, a War Czar and a TARP Czar.

That is 12 czars and no one on the left or right said a word.

Why does it worry you now?

Maybe because you are just looking for ANYTHING to complain about?

Yes, at least 3 beacons of reality in a surreal sea of wingnuts.

Oh...the smart one stepped up to save his team mate from embarrassment

Very brotherly of you there, comrade

So we'll make the question a little more specific then: what do you honestly think about Green Job Czars Van Jones?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgkWG4VnOIg&annotation_id=annotation_109366&feature=iv

Do his proclamations from just 5 years ago not bother you at all?

Perhaps instead of demeaning those who disagree with Obama's philosophy or mocking those of us who question the appropriateness of his actions, you could share with us why you see no wrong in the way the administration is functioning?

You must realize that Obama would have signed any piece of crap that came across his deck if he had been able to get something before recess..so how does that bode well for the country....try and look forward, not point fingers backward if at all possible?

I smell a paradox. If the gameplan is to look forward as you suggest, then why are you looking back 5 years? That's stinging you feel on your "right" cheek was a bitch slap. QED

You should know that you need to bring at least your B+ game if you are seriously interested in a discussion...I will not cower from your self proclaimed brilliance like some of the others!

You cited both Clinton and Bush for appointing Czars...looking backwards?

My specific example was a Czar who proclaimed himself a communist less than 5 years ago, and has yet to recant...

I'm sure you recall during the campaign (the one thing Obama excelled at!) he announced that (to paraphrase) "you can tell a lot about a person by those he surrounds himself with and seeks advice from" and then he went on to use Warren Buffet as an example.

I'm offering Van Jones as an example and asking your opinion about his job advising the President moving forward, and if you have any concerns about a convicted felon in that position....

I know you will be tempted to refer to previous felons, proven or otherwise, in previous administrations, but really try hard to be objective?



Bitch Slap? Hardly....more like a little prick

I'm not interested in discussing the size of your genitalia. Little is required to refute your rejoinders. Have you read any of Jones' books? Do you have any knowledge of his current views, beyond your Robobeck vitriol?

The entire thread has been about Glenn Beck. Maybe you could attempt to produce links and quotes from Beck that talk about the issues as requested. I don’t want to hear your re-phrasing and interpretation of what you think you have learned by staying glued to the Glenn Beck show. I have no intention of following your directives, or being commanded to follow your rules. I am not nor ever will be in your employ. Post links and quotes. You might start with the excerpt out of the Constitution that allows the czars to be appointed……..I know we can’t go back to the last administration (Pug’s rule) so when do you think its appropriate to cite history….and which administrations are we not allowed to talk about in reference to the present one?

I love her post. It starts out with insults (typical) followed by more insults (typical) followed by insults about which party she thinks we're afilliated with (typical) Followed by claiming there are only 3 people who preventing the rest of this message board from having meaningful discussions on USA Chat(more insults). What the hell does she think USA Chat is used for? It doesn't say Glenn Beck Chat, or Hannity Chat or Obama Chat or Daily Kos Chat. Maybe she could enlighten us as to what USA chat is to be used for? Maybe she could create her own thread...alert us all that she'd really prefer to post without rebuttal....