House votes to overthrow "czars"

Discussion in 'Politics' started by aaronman, Feb 18, 2011.

  1. House votes to overthrow 'czars' - Robin Bravender - POLITICO.com


    Interesting...
     
  2. I never liked the use of "Czars" in the first place. So, this sounds good to me!
     
  3. #3 ~Blu, Feb 19, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 19, 2011
    What?

    If the shoe fits... I suppose taking ****** out of Huck Finn stops racism too.
     
  4. I don't remember Republicans complaining when Bush had 35 "Czars", but Obama's 32 "Czars" is too many.

    Lame.

     
  5. the democrats should have complained as well.

    one czar is too many.

    and btw.. this regime has 44 czars.
     
  6. I think you're onto something there
     
  7. They kill two birds with one stone. Not only do they get to say they got rid of those 'Socialistic Czars', but also allow the companies that drove the economy right into recession, to go ahead and do it again, because now noones watching.

    Oh those Republicans, always trying to make themselves look good in the eyes of their 'constituents'... *coughlobbyistscough*
     
  8. #8 Limecat, Feb 19, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 19, 2011
    Bush is still President? This isn't about Republican & Democrat, they are both wrong and Czars are wrong. Wake up.
     
  9. I don't understand why if everybody's talking about jobs they want to get rid of jobs? :confused: Is it like a 'spend money to make money' kind of thing?

    I mean maybe get rid of a couple of them. "California Water Czar"? Like, what?
     

  10. If all jobs were Government jobs your argument might hold water.
     

  11. Jobs are jobs man, people are people.
     
  12. #12 chiefton8, Feb 19, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 19, 2011
    No, Ithink you missed the point...the point is that the Republican's problem with Obama's self-appointed czars is not, contrary to what they claim, that they are self-appointed or that they are so-called czars, but rather that Obama appointed them. They're happy to make a public spectacle showing their opposition to Obama's control, but if any of those Republicans were president, we all know DAMN well they'd be doing the exact same thing.

    In other words, politics as usual. :rolleyes:
     
  13. This whole thing is more Republican style over substance anyway.

    "Czar" is just a loose term that refers to whoever is the highest ranking official in charge of a certain aspect of Government. Most of them, Czar is not even part of their official title, it's just media shorthand for "highest ranking official". They aren't actually Monarchs. They don't actually have the power of Monarchs. It's just a word.

    So defund the "Czars", fire them all, and then whoever is next in charge below them will take their place and be called the [XXXX] Raja or the [XXXX] Griot or some other arcane term.

    It SOUNDS good to take a stand against Czars, it gets the Retardican base riled up, but it's completely symbolic...

    Just like voting to repeal Obamacare when they KNOW that it won't get through the Senate and they don't have the numbers to override a veto.

    Just like all the BS about abortion funding. When there are already multiple laws on the book that prevent federal funding for abortions.

    I thought Republicans #1 goal was jobs. What have they done about jobs?
     
  14. So firing people is how they're going to create jobs.

    Interesting approach.
     
  15. This thread is now retarded.
     
  16. you're just jealous because your team has more czars than my team..
     

  17. Liberalism is a mental disorder. There are no unintended consequences for their actions.
     

  18. Where does the money come from to pay for government jobs? :confused:
     

  19. Cool story bro.
     
  20. Do the people in those jobs not pay taxes?
     
Loading...

Share This Page