Supakewreu

Was that called for?

[quote who="Jharii" reply="256" id="2361268"]You read what you want to read. It's not like I was expecting you to have some great epiphany and realize that this country is in for a world more of hurt before there are any glimmers of hope of it getting better. I hope I am wrong. But I firmly believe that this threshold has been crossed.[/quote] Oh I agree completely that the United States is in for a world of hurt, and so is the Globe in general, b

[quote who="vStyler" reply="252" id="2361253"] all I have seen from you is two wrongs make a right. [/quote] Simply not true, if you got this from what I said then you misread it or I did not write it clearly enough and for that I am sorry. [quote]Some days, I just have better things to do wit my time... like work. I'll continue to respond if and when It's justified not because someone thinks their entitled to an answer.[/quote] <

Never ever ever did I justify anything with something else that is wrong. You are missing the point and do not see this. If I did not communicate it clearly I apologize. Never ever did I say Ambassadors are appointed and are wrong, so that justifies Czars. What I have always been trying to get at is the extent of YOUR belief that ALL appointees that are unelected are inherently bad. This has nothing to do with my beliefs and you have avoided answ

[quote who="vStyler" reply="249" id="2361244"]Done with this for a while. Pick up becks book... Arguing with idiots. [/quote] Typical, when faced with justifying your position you choose to drop an insult and leave.

[quote who="Jharii" reply="247" id="2361227"] First off, military personnel are not traditional government officials. And isn't it obvious that even elected government officials can be bad as well? But compound that with those bad government officials appointing people into places of power is simply foolish. To not acknowledge this is a problem is a rather naive point of view. [/quote] Of course elected/unelected officials can be bad, it is not really the

[quote who="Jharii" reply="244" id="2361196"] I am sorry. Did you have any discussion with me (or Styler) "back then?" What are you basing your assumption on that I did not have issues with this "back then?"[/quote] I was not justifying, I was asking a question. Are you against every single government appointment from the cabinet down to the military? Do you believe that in order for something to not be inherently bad in government is must be e

[quote who="vStyler" reply="243" id="2361188"]All depends where you get your figures from.. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,531363,00.html Reagan had 2. Bush 41 had 1. Clinton had 9. Bush 43 had 12. [/quote] I guess it does depend where you get your figures from. I looked up Czars on wikipedia and checked some of the sources for Bush's Czars appointments, the ones I checked were legitimate. Your source is Fo

[quote who="vStyler" reply="240" id="2361173"] Far as I know, no one else has even used.. 10.. let alone 33. If you don't see something is odd about that... sorry dude. Anyway.. by next week, there will be at least.. 1 less. You can believe whatever polls u want to...knock urself out.[/quote] Bush had 35 official Czar jobs and appointed 45 Czars over the term of his presidency. Where was your fear back then?

[quote who="Jharii" reply="238" id="2361169"] There is nothing good about putting people in places of power (potential places or otherwise) within the government when they are not elected officials. These people were not voted in and as such, do not necessarily convey the mindset of the people who elected them in.[/quote] Cabinet members, Supreme court judges, every single non-elected government employee from secretaries to janitors to the non-elected military mem

Another aside on the polls. The 42% poll was conducted by Zogby, a person who gives his polls a notorious Republican slant. For reference, he had McCain leading Obama on election day 48-47%. He was only off by.. Oh.. About 10%.

By the way, here is a link to the FIRST debate with McCain during the election with Obama saying "we need more troops in Afghanistan". www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2jYsLwcEIY Care to take back your comment about me needing to do a little research?

[quote who="Jharii" reply="234" id="2361153"] So by your logic, the big R's screwed everything up. Since they employed 2, 5, 10 czars, let's just multiply that out so we have 30+ now. Since it did NOT work before. Makes sense to me. Sounds like the same logic he is using on the economy. No one ever said even 1 czar was acceptable. But 33 is yes, downright scary. [/quote] No, the big R's did not screw everything

[quote who="Jharii" reply="233" id="2361144"] This is typical, but I was expecting more than this. Becoming defensive by going offensive. You try to belittle a point to make yours seem valid. That doesn't fly. You may want to do a little research. Obama rode his candidacy on the back of ending the war.[/quote] No, what I want from you is some reason that Czars are bad. Please explain to me why. As to point number 2, you might

[quote who="vStyler" reply="230" id="2361134"]The fact that even one poll says 42% should be cause for concern to any current admin partisan. Hell even Bob Beckell is starting to have doubts. btw.. i don't see on record that any past admin had THIRTY THREE Czars.[/quote] No the fact that one poll says 42% and the rest are completely different should be the opposite of cause of concern, it is cause for dismissal. It is an OUTLIER.

[quote who="Jharii" reply="228" id="2361131"] Anyhow, they have had MONTHS to read and digest the bill proposals now, and anyone who can't do that is incompetant regardless of party affiliation. Now you're getting the point.[/quote] No I understand the point. Incompetance is there on every level of society. Some are incompetant some aren't. It does not mean we should abolish government programs or not try to establish new ones for fear of inc

[quote who="Jharii" reply="226" id="2361124"] That was why I offered counter point instead of numbers. Polls aside, simply applying common sense and logic, this regime is pure fail. It's czar and feathers. [/quote] I read your long post. I saw very little "common sense" and "logic". Mostly I saw opinions and fear. I could address it point by point but it is hard to find coherent points to address. You decided to parap

[quote who="Morak" reply="223" id="2361110"] By big R you mean Representative? John Conyers (D., Mich.) at a National Press Club luncheon last month: "What good is reading the bill if it's a thousand pages and you don't have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?" [/quote] By big R I mean Republican, and I said "mostly". Here we have John Conyers saying "reading bills is hard". Well yes J

[quote who="vStyler" reply="211" id="2360941"] This presidency is already becoming a laughing stock. In record time, I might add. agreed, to be at 42% after 6 mo. or so.. I don't like polls myself.. but typically... their dead on.[/quote] An interesting number, 42%. Why is it when there are dozens of polls released, do you latch on to the Zogby outlier? Hmmmmmmmmm. It seems you will ignore all other e

[quote who="Jharii" reply="214" id="2361002"]Oh, I almost forgot. Since I am unhappy with this president and the freefall that this country is in, that makes me a racist. /facepalm[/quote] Really? I do not recall anyone in this thread calling you a racist. I would venture a guess that if you think the country is in a freefall then that makes you a staunch Republican and thats about it.

[quote who="Nitro Cruiser" reply="207" id="2360886"] Having spent 24 years in the military, there is a lot of waste their too. But they are getting better. You touched on a key point... Military personnel manage the military day to day, not the Washington bureaucrats. The highest generals get paid less that the newest congressman. Nobody is getting rich in the military. I often found myself personally responsible for the safety of billions of dollars worth of aircraft at a tim

[quote who="Morak" reply="216" id="2361058"] HR 3200 "America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009" Sec. 1233. Advance care planning consultation. I have read this section several times. Sometimes when I read it I get the impression that it is a counseling of options. However other times when I read it I get the impression that these consultations give the council the power to influence what care a person will receive. The fact

[quote who="Nitro Cruiser" reply="200" id="2360633"] Well have a look in your backyard then. Native Americans are the only Americans (by treaty) to have a "right" to health care. The Govt. runs the program. The running joke among native Americans is don't get sick after June as that's when the funding runs out. And some people want the govt. to provide health care for everyone! Read and see what night be in store for many more Americans. http://nativetimes.com/index.php?o

[quote who="vStyler" reply="199" id="2360630"] Yeah, because no one has said anything derogatory about wall street and the bankers recently. I suppose I should rail less on the 'poor' because their poor. [/quote] Not because they are poor, but because their negative effect on the economy is not catastrophic. There will always be people gaming the system, it is all about costs and enforcement. It is all about priorities. I

[quote who="vStyler" reply="195" id="2360617"] Do you really believe in death panels It's already happening in other countries. What would you call a set of individuals making calls on who gets life saving meds.. and who doesn't? Put em out of their misery panel? [/quote] That happens RIGHT NOW in the United States. Insurance companies decide who gets coverage and who does not every day. However, you are n