If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Hill)   Republicans vote to "defund Obama's shadow government." Next up: Warlock Prevention Act and axing Unicorn subsidies   (thehill.com) divider line 156
    More: Stupid  
•       •       •

2061 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Feb 2011 at 9:35 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



156 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-02-18 10:03:49 AM  
But the greater number of Czars under Bush were A-OK.
 
2011-02-18 10:07:07 AM  
tforbes
I think if we look carefully, we will be able to pinpoint the moment at which Congress became a Fark thread.


ah, when Pelosi took over?

i820.photobucket.com
 
2011-02-18 10:07:34 AM  
Republicans railed against Browner and Obama's other policy advisers, arguing they played too great a role in the president's policy decisions for officials that were appointed rather than confirmed by Congress.

Kind of a good point.
 
2011-02-18 10:08:03 AM  
This makes me think of those YouTube videos where that handsome skinny guy goes to Tea Party rallies and just let them talk for a long time to reveal how clueless they are.

"and there are czars everywhere! Who are these czars? What powers do they have?!"

"they are advisors. They have no executive power."

"but who are they advising!?"

"The president. The president has always had advisors, regardless if they are Republican or Democrat. It's really just an unfortunate nickname from the media."

"Well we're not Republicans or Democrats! NO MORE CZARS! THIS IS AMERICA NOT RUSSIA!"
 
2011-02-18 10:08:34 AM  
I'm confused, is *this* the bill that finally creates all the jobs that the Republicans told us they were going to have a laser bear-like focus on?
 
2011-02-18 10:08:56 AM  

Slaves2Darkness: and just sent all the nominations to the Senate on the same day


It's the House that is doing most of the ridiculous shiat these days, not the Senate so much. "Punishing" the Senate for the actions fo the House seems hardly beneficial. Luckily they don't have the majority in both the House and the Senate or Obama would probably be having to utilize his veto a lot more often.
 
2011-02-18 10:09:13 AM  
1.bp.blogspot.com

Obama, when unemployment fell
 
2011-02-18 10:09:15 AM  

LasersHurt: You know, when they got elected I thought, "Maybe they'll just be useless jackasses for two years, and 2012 will be an easy re-election for the president, maybe even a flipback in the House."

I never expected it would be to the degree it is - they're not even TRYING to govern, or work with anyone else, they're just outwardly attempting to defund everything the President or Democrats in general support or use. Just total transparent farkery.

It's like I expected them to shoot me with a Super Soaker, and instead they turned on the fire hose.


I think their goal is to pass a budget that can't possibly get through the Senate, then they will blame the Democrats for the government shutdown that will happen in March when their crazy budget doesn't pass.
 
2011-02-18 10:09:54 AM  
farm2.static.flickr.com

RIP czar
 
2011-02-18 10:10:20 AM  
This is kind of OT for this thread...but I just woke up....

Somebody please tell me that these dishonest, lying, selfish traitors have no chance of winning in 2012. And mean it.

Every day they carry on like they do, and still have the support of anyone, even their ignorant christian fox news brainwashed base, it amazes and disgusts me just a little bit more.

I keep thinking the gig has to end because that many people cant be that stupid. But it just keeps going


WTF is wrong with people?
 
2011-02-18 10:10:31 AM  
The Republicans are a bunch of farking hypocrites. It's okay to spend out of control and jack up the debt, but it's only okay when we're in control. It's okay to massively expand the scope of government "entitlements," but it's only okay when it's for old people, is completely unpaid for, and requires illegally holding a vote open for multiple hours. It's okay for a president to have a bunch of policy advisers, but it's only okay when the president is a Republican and is using them to push for policies you agree with.

But it's not too late for them. Or rather, it's not yet, but it's almost. You guys have one chance before you completely lose my generation. Save yourselves, please. Nominate somebody at least halfway sane for the presidency. And for the love of all that is holy in the universe, don't nominate a brain-dead moron like Sarah Palin.

/who am I kidding?
 
2011-02-18 10:11:03 AM  
The Homer Tax
I'm confused, is *this* the bill that finally creates all the jobs that the Republicans told us they were going to have a laser bear-like focus on?


Its a good start. Look at India, they deleted layers of Gov red tape and the folks who implemented them. Now they have a rather nice economy.

Best part, when they deleted Gov Jobs. Private jobs sprung up.
 
2011-02-18 10:14:13 AM  

winterwhile: Its a good start. Look at India, they deleted layers of Gov red tape and the folks who implemented them. Now they have a rather nice economy.


Advisors do not create policy or bureaucracy or red tape.

Try a finer paint paint brush the next time. You're doing a sloppy job.
 
2011-02-18 10:14:46 AM  
They're policy advisors. Which is what they were called when Bush had twice as many of them as Obama. Which is what they SHOULD be called, because THERE'S NOTHING FRAKKING WRONG WITH THEM.

Only when it's obama does it suddenly become 'bad' and be called 'czars'. Seriously, GOP, fark yourselves.
 
2011-02-18 10:14:48 AM  

Lost Thought 00: They do realize that Obama gets veto power over the budget, right?


I think it's pretty clear Boehner has no idea how to run the House, much less what powers the President is awarded.

Homer Nixon: Honestly it's just like Sarah Palin using "blood libel." Using a phrase you've heard of and like because it sounds scary without having any idea what it actually means.


Also:
- Foreign policy
- The Bush Doctrine
- Repudiate
- Full Term (except for pregnancies)
- Subsidies
- Socialism
- Marxism
- Fascism
- Nuclear
- Abuse of Powers
- Sovereignty
- Contraception
 
2011-02-18 10:15:21 AM  

JohnnyC: Slaves2Darkness: and just sent all the nominations to the Senate on the same day

It's the House that is doing most of the ridiculous shiat these days, not the Senate so much. "Punishing" the Senate for the actions fo the House seems hardly beneficial. Luckily they don't have the majority in both the House and the Senate or Obama would probably be having to utilize his veto a lot more often.


Beneficial, who said anything about beneficial? No, this would be a total fark with Congress and obstruct their work move. If the Republicans want to play this game, Obama should just show them how farking difficult it can get for them.
 
2011-02-18 10:15:43 AM  

flyyyyy: WTF is wrong with people?


Not that it is the only answer by any means, but an anti-intellectual/anti-scientific/pro-religious agenda promoted by Republicans seems to have a hold on a certain segment of the population. I don't like it either... but if I had to point to any one particular thing as the primary culprit, it is that. And I agree that it is quite disgusting.
 
2011-02-18 10:16:15 AM  
Shadow Government? No longer taking marching orders from Rush and they've moved on to Alex Jones.
 
2011-02-18 10:17:54 AM  

Slaves2Darkness: Beneficial, who said anything about beneficial?


I did... we don't have the time, energy, or money to be playing farking games with our present and future.
 
2011-02-18 10:17:55 AM  

CorporatePerson: This makes me think of those YouTube videos where that handsome skinny guy goes to Tea Party rallies and just let them talk for a long time to reveal how clueless they are.

"and there are czars everywhere! Who are these czars? What powers do they have?!"

"they are advisors. They have no executive power."

"but who are they advising!?"

"The president. The president has always had advisors, regardless if they are Republican or Democrat. It's really just an unfortunate nickname from the media."

"Well we're not Republicans or Democrats! NO MORE CZARS! THIS IS AMERICA NOT RUSSIA!"


that guy is you, isn't it?
 
2011-02-18 10:21:37 AM  
To be fair, when they say "Obama's shadow government" they really mean "Obama's darkie government".
 
2011-02-18 10:24:04 AM  
Since these positions were created only as a way to skirt the senates responsibility to approve presidential advisors.. it has always been inevitable that someday congress would get fed up with them.

When the use of czars was small and contained the senate was happy to just give the nod and wink and let the president do his thin. But it got out of hand with GW and is even more out of hand with Obama..
 
2011-02-18 10:24:27 AM  
www.johnennis.tv

He's right you know. Not in the way he thinks he is, but still.
 
2011-02-18 10:25:13 AM  
Wake up, America! Meet your new rulers:


www.zaffnews.com
files.kirin-order.org

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2011-02-18 10:27:43 AM  

dwrash: Since these positions were created only as a way to skirt the senates responsibility to approve presidential advisors.. it has always been inevitable that someday congress would get fed up with them.

When the use of czars was small and contained the senate was happy to just give the nod and wink and let the president do his thin. But it got out of hand with GW and is even more out of hand with Obama..


The Senate doesn't have a responsibility to confirm Presidential advisers. It has a responsibility to confirm the heads of Governmental departments and other high officials of the government.
 
2011-02-18 10:28:31 AM  
FART BONGO
 
2011-02-18 10:29:05 AM  

PirateKing: Wake up, America! Meet your new rulers:


I was just about to make a Lexx reference.
 
2011-02-18 10:32:57 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: dwrash: Since these positions were created only as a way to skirt the senates responsibility to approve presidential advisors.. it has always been inevitable that someday congress would get fed up with them.

When the use of czars was small and contained the senate was happy to just give the nod and wink and let the president do his thin. But it got out of hand with GW and is even more out of hand with Obama..

The Senate doesn't have a responsibility to confirm Presidential advisers. It has a responsibility to confirm the heads of Governmental departments and other high officials of the government.


The senate has the right to defer the right to the president if the want.. but the senate can require their approval they want.

"[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

Where the line is draw is up to the senate.. and they have been silent when it comes to czars.
 
2011-02-18 10:36:58 AM  

ultraholland: RIP czar


BRING BACK CZAR!!!


/misses the Czar-Tats Wars
 
2011-02-18 10:37:04 AM  
I'm all for the Republicans getting the Shadows out of our government. If they don't, then when the Vorlons show up, the entire planet's toast.
 
2011-02-18 10:37:50 AM  

bulldg4life: STOP HAVING ADVISORS! MAKE ALL DECISIONS YOURSELF AND WITH NO ADDED INFORMATION!


So much this. The whole czar hate thing is about third on the retard scale right after birfers and truthers. No matter who the POTUS is he is dealing with the biggest problems on the planet. ALL OF THEM. Delegating a trusted advisor to each of the enourmously complex issues is basic management. We've all had the boss that tried to micromanage every detail of everything. Do you want that in a POTUS?
 
2011-02-18 10:41:53 AM  
This bill is full of loopholes.

Sure, it would defund the position of "senior adviser to the secretary of the treasury assigned to the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry", but there's nothing to stop Fartbama from turning around and appointing a new czar position called "Associate Adviser to the Secretary of the Treasury assigned to the Executive Policy Team on Domestic Car-Making".
 
2011-02-18 10:45:40 AM  

dwrash: Since these positions were created only as a way to skirt the senates responsibility to approve presidential advisors.. it has always been inevitable that someday congress would get fed up with them.


The Senate does not have authority over the approval of advisors. Stop making shiat up.

When the use of czars was small and contained the senate was happy to just give the nod and wink and let the president do his thin. But it got out of hand with GW and is even more out of hand with Obama..

Got more out of hand? By having like half of what Bush had?

Reality would like to have a word with you.
 
2011-02-18 10:47:50 AM  

dwrash: Where the line is draw is up to the senate.. and they have been silent when it comes to czars.


That's a whole lot different than saying, as you did, the positions were created to 'skirt' the Senate.

The fact is governance is complicated, and if the Senate wants to drag the whole process to a screeching halt and demand every single underling be confirmed by the Senate they could.

But that would pretty much bring the nation to the point of no return as far as pointless partisan bickering goes.
 
2011-02-18 10:47:59 AM  

Karac: I'm all for the Republicans getting the Shadows out of our government. If they don't, then when the Vorlons show up, the entire planet's toast.


Oh come on now, the Shadows were all about chaos and survival of the fittest. That just goes along with the Republican market based theories. The Vorlons were more aligned wit the Democrats and the top down control of people's lives.
 
2011-02-18 10:51:41 AM  

dwrash: "[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to mak......."


These guys violated the Constitution twice in their first day. Money is the only guideline they follow. They'll annex Canada if they think it'll make them a buck.
 
2011-02-18 10:53:28 AM  
You guys are missing the real point. This is just another chapter in Axelrod's Evil Intent plan to re-elect Mr Obama.

First, Axelrod tricks the Rebubbakins into picking meaningless poo-fights with the President, then he focuses public attention on the "embarrassing fights between Tea Party loyalists and the Republican leadership."

Then he gets the President Re-elected.

Ta da!

/two threads in one post
 
2011-02-18 10:53:55 AM  
OLD GODS
F'TAGHN
OBAMA
F'TA
\ o /
|
/ \
 
2011-02-18 10:54:07 AM  
Is this an example of people in the US speaking a different sort of English than everyone else or is this just an example of someone being clueless?

Doesn't Shadow Government normally refer to the opposition? Their top experts and leaders who would be the government if they were in charge and stuff?
 
2011-02-18 10:55:46 AM  

DarnoKonrad: The fact is governance is complicated, and if the Senate wants to drag the whole process to a screeching halt and demand every single underling be confirmed by the Senate they could.


Not Constitutionally, they couldn't.

The excerpt posted by dwrash is pretty clear in stating that the Senate's advice and consent powers only apply to positions defined in the Constitution, or established by Law.

Unless the Senate wants to micromanage the Executive branch to the extent of passing a law formally creating the position of "Chief Diversity Officer at the Federal Communications Commission", they have no say in who gets hired for that job.
 
2011-02-18 10:57:24 AM  

LasersHurt: Cat Food Sandwiches: bulldg4life: STOP HAVING ADVISORS! MAKE ALL DECISIONS YOURSELF AND WITH NO ADDED INFORMATION!

Also, don't spend a crap-load of money doing studies that you totally ignore. Like the Erskine Bowles debt reduction report.

Did they change the meaning of "totally ignore" to include "only listening to part of it"?


Actually, it's dumber than that. The committee didn't even issue a report. The committee failed to meet the agreement standard set at the formation of the committee, so no endorsed report was released.

So anything released by that commission was merely an advisory paper that didn't even have the approval of the committee.
 
2011-02-18 10:58:35 AM  

Loki-L: Is this an example of people in the US speaking a different sort of English than everyone else or is this just an example of someone being clueless?

Doesn't Shadow Government normally refer to the opposition? Their top experts and leaders who would be the government if they were in charge and stuff?


You're not from around here, are you boy?
 
2011-02-18 10:58:55 AM  

A Dark Evil Omen: OLD GODS
F'TAGHN
OBAMA
F'TA
\ o /
|
/ \


why vote for the lesser of evils?
 
2011-02-18 10:59:34 AM  

StoneColdAtheist: ultraholland: RIP czar

BRING BACK CZAR!!!

/misses the Czar-Tats Wars


google his handle

*runz out of thread*
 
2011-02-18 11:04:11 AM  

Impasse: StoneColdAtheist: ultraholland: RIP czar

BRING BACK CZAR!!!

/misses the Czar-Tats Wars

google his handle

*runz out of thread*


For those of you who might be curious and tempted to google him, his full Fark handle is/was "czarangelus". Got permabanned a year or two ago.

That photo of him is from his Fark bio.
 
2011-02-18 11:06:39 AM  

hubiestubert: President George W. Bush speaks to the press after the signing of the 2008 Economic Report Monday Feb. 11, 2008, in the Oval Office. Joining President Bush are, from left, Chuck Blahous, Deputy Assistant to the President for Economic Policy; Pierce Scranton, Chief of Staff, Council of Economic Advisors; Eddie Lazear, Chairman, Council of Economic Advisors; Donald Marron, Senior Economic Advisor, Council of Economic Advisors; and Keith Hennessey, Assistant to the President for Economic Policy. White House photo by Joyce N. Boghosian

That, is a shot from the George Bush Archives.

You might note that these are all Advisors to the President. Where was the outrage for the huge number of Advisors only a few years ago?


There's a common theme in that picture... something all of the people have in common. I can't quite put my finger on it.
 
2011-02-18 11:06:45 AM  

poot_rootbeer: DarnoKonrad: The fact is governance is complicated, and if the Senate wants to drag the whole process to a screeching halt and demand every single underling be confirmed by the Senate they could.

Not Constitutionally, they couldn't.

The excerpt posted by dwrash is pretty clear in stating that the Senate's advice and consent powers only apply to positions defined in the Constitution, or established by Law.

Unless the Senate wants to micromanage the Executive branch to the extent of passing a law formally creating the position of "Chief Diversity Officer at the Federal Communications Commission", they have no say in who gets hired for that job.


I think you need to go reread that portion of the constitution I posted.
 
2011-02-18 11:13:23 AM  

Shvetz: hubiestubert: President George W. Bush speaks to the press after the signing of the 2008 Economic Report Monday Feb. 11, 2008, in the Oval Office. Joining President Bush are, from left, Chuck Blahous, Deputy Assistant to the President for Economic Policy; Pierce Scranton, Chief of Staff, Council of Economic Advisors; Eddie Lazear, Chairman, Council of Economic Advisors; Donald Marron, Senior Economic Advisor, Council of Economic Advisors; and Keith Hennessey, Assistant to the President for Economic Policy. White House photo by Joyce N. Boghosian

That, is a shot from the George Bush Archives.

You might note that these are all Advisors to the President. Where was the outrage for the huge number of Advisors only a few years ago?

There's a common theme in that picture... something all of the people have in common. I can't quite put my finger on it.


They're all human beings?

They're all wearing suits?

They're all wondering what it would be like to stick their penis up Dubya's butt?

If it's none of those options, I'm confused.
 
2011-02-18 11:15:21 AM  
Good Lord, that headline cannot be right. They didn't ACTUALLY use the phrase, "shadow government" did they? No. That's just not

"I think this sends a strong signal to the President that we are tired of him running this shadow government, where they have got these czars that are literally circumventing the accountability and scrutiny that goes with Senate confirmation," Scalise said after the vote.

Oh good grief.

This country is just getting too stupid for words.
 
2011-02-18 11:19:03 AM  

dwrash: poot_rootbeer: DarnoKonrad: The fact is governance is complicated, and if the Senate wants to drag the whole process to a screeching halt and demand every single underling be confirmed by the Senate they could.

Not Constitutionally, they couldn't.

The excerpt posted by dwrash is pretty clear in stating that the Senate's advice and consent powers only apply to positions defined in the Constitution, or established by Law.

Unless the Senate wants to micromanage the Executive branch to the extent of passing a law formally creating the position of "Chief Diversity Officer at the Federal Communications Commission", they have no say in who gets hired for that job.

I think you need to go reread that portion of the constitution I posted.


Where in that portion does it say that the Senate has to confirm all advisors to the president? By the republicans thought process, if he goes to get a haircut and asks the barber what he thinks about Egypt, without getting the barber confirmed first, he's violating the constitution.
 
Displayed 50 of 156 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report