House votes to overthrow 'czars'

[cebeu]

I missed this from Thursday. Another "whack" to the flailing, over-spending, weak-kneed and apologetic leftist Oba'Mao regime. While I'm not foolish enough to believe formally defunding these "positions" will mitigate influence nor have any sincere short-term impact, I support it nonetheless, even if only symbolic.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49781.html


"[House] Republicans successfully added an amendment to the continuing resolution that would leave President Barack Obama’s senior advisers on policy issues including health care, energy and others out of a job.

The jobs on the chopping block: White House-appointed advisers on health care, energy and climate, green jobs, urban affairs, the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention center, oversight of TARP executive compensation, diversity at the Federal Communications Commission and the auto industry manufacturing policy...."

I'm often critical of the Dem party and while I continue to have very little respect for what their platform represents I'm obligated to extend a public "thanks" to those on the left that also voted in support of striking down funding for these "shadow" government positions and directly saying to 'Mao; "you and your Administration can continue to eat shit you worthless fuck." 13 Dems joined-in to support striking this garbage down, resulting in a 249-179 vote to eliminate the "Czars."

[Hoosier]

I find it hilarious how absolutely biased every view point is here. These horrible awful "czars"... it seems like I remember first hearing about them during the administration of GWB. I wonder what some reasearch says:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars

Also a huge shock, the GOP held House only targets positions they disagree with. Is the "faith-based czar" on that list? God forbid somebody have a job of making sure the banks we bailed out don't give billions to the executives there. We wouldn't want them to feel like they aren't justly rewarded for the immensely difficult work.

If this had happened during the last term, messages here would have been about how great these people were, yadda yadda.

H.

[Marlin]

Wait a minute,, There was a czar for the closure of gitmo??


You got to love Bwaney fwanks comments also. [LOL]

[sniper7]

less bullshit .gov jobs make me happy. cut them all.

[Hoosier]

I don't care who they are, who they are appointed by, or what they are for. I want our government returned back to the original federalist system, that means all the 85% of the federal that is essentially pork-fat and beyond the constitution needs to be gone; States can pick up any lost "services" by increases in State taxes, while the federal needs a budget about 1/5th of what it currently is, and tax rates at about 1/2. Guess I'm biased too.

I support any bill that is a means to this end. I don't criticize them for lack of perfection, as I have more of a brain than for instance, Ron Paul, and I don't desire things to be only symbolic.

You argue Ron Paul's point in the first paragraph, and then say he doesn't have a brain in the second?

H.

[ronaldrwl]

That is good news. What's next on the chopping block?

[tmckay2]

yeah and if bush had rammed through as much stuff as obama has already, libs would be calling for his head. theres lots of things obama has done that are similar to what bush was chastized by the left for and yet don't hear a peep. both sides are biased, always have been always will be. its why its foolish to even get involved in politics in regards to parties. its best to try to look at each individual, though even that is difficult these days.


I find it hilarious how absolutely biased every view point is here. These horrible awful "czars"... it seems like I remember first hearing about them during the administration of GWB. I wonder what some reasearch says:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars

Also a huge shock, the GOP held House only targets positions they disagree with. Is the "faith-based czar" on that list? God forbid somebody have a job of making sure the banks we bailed out don't give billions to the executives there. We wouldn't want them to feel like they aren't justly rewarded for the immensely difficult work.

If this had happened during the last term, messages here would have been about how great these people were, yadda yadda.

H.

[spittoon]

it is about time i hope they get it done

[cebeu]

"I find it hilarious how absolutely biased every view point is here.
Biased? I’m far from having a simple demeanor of (negative) bias. Let’s be clear, I have nothing but disdain and disgust (and occasionally raw hatred) for the Democratic platform and the actions of the left. I get it though Hoosier…I find your occasional naiveté and idealistic tripe [“your bias”] just as hilarious, although laughable would be more accurate in some instances.



”.."faith-based czar" on that list?
I don’t subscribe to organized religion nor do I commit to a belief in any one God (most here would classify me as an atheist). But since we’re being cavalier I’ll respond in-kind; “I’m pretty certain if an assigned ‘faith-based czar’ were Muslim the Left would defend it viciously as a sacrosanct role, it’s only when the topic slants Christian that the left seems to have a problem with it.” I’ll be specific for you Hoosier, no; I do not support add-on Administration overhead regardless of the party or era to include your example above. I fully support the separation of Church and State.



“…administration of GWB…GOP… the last term,…”
I’m not a registered Republican; don’t care. Don't care care about previous Administration assignments/missteps either (your Wiki reference, thanks by the way but rest assured, I need no help from you re: research).



God forbid somebody have a job of making sure the banks we bailed out don't give billions to the executives there. We wouldn't want them to feel like they aren't justly rewarded for the immensely difficult work.
I presume the above was / is emotion, but if sincere, refer back to my naiveté characterization, it fits.

[Hoosier]

Biased? I’m far from having a simple demeanor of (negative) bias. Let’s be clear, I have nothing but disdain and disgust (and occasionally raw hatred) for the Democratic platform and the actions of the left.

My point is, if Bush and Obama took the same action, Obama will get criticized here and not Bush. I find this humorous. I'm sure, as someone else pointed out, that if I hung out on some uber liberal forum I'd see the reverse.


“I’m pretty certain if an assigned ‘faith-based czar’ were Muslim the Left would defend it viciously as a sacrosanct role, it’s only when the topic slants Christian that the left seems to have a problem with it.”

I don't know what lefties you're hanging out with, but I wouldn't like them either.

H.

[Byte Stryke]

Personally I just wish all of the Muslims and Christians would hurry up and kill each other off so we can get back to real business.
[LOL]

[Chad4000]

Biased? I’m far from having a simple demeanor of (negative) bias. Let’s be clear, I have nothing but disdain and disgust (and occasionally raw hatred) for the Democratic platform and the actions of the left. I get it though Hoosier…I find your occasional naiveté and idealistic tripe [“your bias”] just as hilarious, although laughable would be more accurate in some instances.



I don’t subscribe to organized religion nor do I commit to a belief in any one God (most here would classify me as an atheist). But since we’re being cavalier I’ll respond in-kind; “I’m pretty certain if an assigned ‘faith-based czar’ were Muslim the Left would defend it viciously as a sacrosanct role, it’s only when the topic slants Christian that the left seems to have a problem with it.” I’ll be specific for you Hoosier, no; I do not support add-on Administration overhead regardless of the party or era to include your example above. I fully support the separation of Church and State.



I’m not a registered Republican; don’t care. Don't care care about previous Administration assignments/missteps either (your Wiki reference, thanks by the way but rest assured, I need no help from you re: research).




I presume the above was / is emotion, but if sincere, refer back to my naiveté characterization, it fits.


What he said...

[Troublco]

Personally I just wish all of the Muslims and Christians would hurry up and kill each other off so we can get back to real business.
[LOL]


I'd settle for the Muslims and the Atheists. [ROFL1]

[sniper7]

I'd settle for the Muslims and the Atheists. [ROFL1]


I vote for muslims and liberals.

[ChadAmberg]

My point is, if Bush and Obama took the same action, Obama will get criticized here and not Bush. I find this humorous. I'm sure, as someone else pointed out, that if I hung out on some uber liberal forum I'd see the reverse.
H.

Wow, you've obviously never been exposed or talked to conservatives. If you have, you would have realized how ridiculous this statement is. Conservatives attacked GWB for every mistake he made. Of course, it was never about feelings or knee jerk reactions like the left's echo chamber, it was directed at all the betrayals of both conservative thought and the Constitution.

[sniper7]

I am becoming more increasingly pissed at congress. that is where the reals problems are at. I don't care who the figurehead is. I do care the actions he takes that makes the country look bad which obama has done over and over.

Congress is where changes need to be made, spending cuts enacted, eliminating the pork, fixing the problems. then the figurehead needs to sign off on them and accept they are the will of the people.

[Troublco]

The figurehead has some power, too...in the form of the dreaded "executive order". That power needs to be curtailed, as well.

[Byte Stryke]

I'd settle for the Muslims and the Atheists. [ROFL1]

or the Muslims, Christians, Jews and Atheists.
I'm just sick of everyone killing each other over different versions of the same fucking book.

[cebeu]

Yeah..."save em' you leftist turds."

"Signature policy areas...health care and climate change..." signature my ass...

Senate Democrats: Save the czars! (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/50684.html)


The amendment “continues the Republican objection to President Obama’s use of ‘czars’ for coordinating policy across government and intentionally hamstrings the White House on interagency coordination of two signature policy areas – health care reform and climate change,” the committee said in a statement...