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
 
2011-02-18 07:17:53 AM  
Gul'dan and Cho'gall laugh at them.
 
2011-02-18 07:22:45 AM  
But, where are the jobs? I was told there would be jobs.
 
2011-02-18 07:47:19 AM  
This isn't England, and the Republicans would be the one to have a shadow cabinet anyway.
 
2011-02-18 07:54:16 AM  
it's not a "shadow" government when it's the actual government, dumbasses!
 
2011-02-18 07:55:01 AM  

MorrisBird: But, where are the jobs? I was told there would be jobs.


The Czar job market isn't looking good these days.
 
2011-02-18 07:55:36 AM  
And "czar" is a stupid name for the positions. Who came up with that, Nixon?
 
2011-02-18 08:01:11 AM  

make me some tea: And "czar" is a stupid name for the positions. Who came up with that, Nixon?


The media, I believe.
 
2011-02-18 08:07:34 AM  

No YOU'RE a Towel: make me some tea: And "czar" is a stupid name for the positions. Who came up with that, Nixon?

The media, I believe.


Heh, not surprising.
 
2011-02-18 08:09:31 AM  

make me some tea: No YOU'RE a Towel: make me some tea: And "czar" is a stupid name for the positions. Who came up with that, Nixon?

The media, I believe.

Heh, not surprising.


No, actually it goes all the way back to Wilson for the first one.
 
2011-02-18 08:14:58 AM  

GAT_00: No, actually it goes all the way back to Wilson for the first one.


I WAS TOLD ONLY FARTBONGO HAD CZARS!
 
2011-02-18 08:25:03 AM  
The Republicans should be more concerned about how fartbongo has secritly taken SEKRIT CONTROL of the US MILITARY!
 
2011-02-18 08:31:27 AM  
Somebody tell Lamont Cranston quick!
 
2011-02-18 08:35:32 AM  
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.
 
2011-02-18 08:37:15 AM  

Alphax: Gul'dan and Cho'gall laugh at them.


Cho'gall is dead, man. For the week anyway
 
2011-02-18 08:43:22 AM  

UNC_Samurai: This isn't England, and the Republicans would be the one to have a shadow cabinet anyway.


It's fun to just make shiat up, isn't it?
 
2011-02-18 08:51:02 AM  

BillCo: UNC_Samurai: This isn't England, and the Republicans would be the one to have a shadow cabinet anyway.

It's fun to just make shiat up, isn't it?


That IS the theme of this thread, isn't it?
 
2011-02-18 08:54:09 AM  
STOP HAVING ADVISORS! MAKE ALL DECISIONS YOURSELF AND WITH NO ADDED INFORMATION!
 
2011-02-18 08:57:49 AM  
I think I need to hit a few repulicans with curse of agony.
Or maybe a chaos bolt followed by some incinerate spam.
 
2011-02-18 09:07:39 AM  
i can't tell if republicans are just stupid - idiocracy stupid - or if they're simply cynically pandering to their base with every political move.
 
2011-02-18 09:08:34 AM  
lh4.googleusercontent.com

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?
 
2011-02-18 09:12:14 AM  

FlashHarry: i can't tell if republicans are just stupid - idiocracy stupid - or if they're simply cynically pandering to their base with every political move.


A little from column A, a little from column B...
 
2011-02-18 09:20:25 AM  

make me some tea: And "czar" is a stupid name for the positions. Who came up with that, Nixon?



Actually, I've long wanted to be the czar of something. I'm particularly fond of the title Drug Czar.
 
2011-02-18 09:20:37 AM  

hubiestubert: 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?


If my photo manipulation skills went beyond roflbot.com, I'd give every one of those dudes those big furry Russian hats.
 
2011-02-18 09:22:24 AM  

BillCo: UNC_Samurai: This isn't England, and the Republicans would be the one to have a shadow cabinet anyway.

It's fun to just make shiat up, isn't it?


It's fun to learn facts! (new window)
 
2011-02-18 09:29:33 AM  

BillCo: UNC_Samurai: This isn't England, and the Republicans would be the one to have a shadow cabinet anyway.

It's fun to just make shiat up, isn't it?


Ask the Republicans pushing this nonsense. They seem to be having a ball.

At our expense.
 
2011-02-18 09:34:19 AM  

hubiestubert: Where was the outrage for the huge number of Advisors only a few years ago?


I think that the Republicans were particularly nubianrdly with their outrage back then because the advisory positions simply weren't the black marks on the integrity of the office that they are today.
 
2011-02-18 09:35:15 AM  
 
2011-02-18 09:35:54 AM  

kronicfeld: nubianrdly


ha ha. filtwned!
 
2011-02-18 09:40:11 AM  
Yet another day of Republicans working tirelessly to ensure that I couldn't possibly vote for or endorse a vote for any member of their party in any election on a local or national level... and I'm an independent. I'd say thank you for making my decisions in the voting booth easier, but I wanted MORE quality choices, not less.

I can't even find any humor in Republican actions and positions anymore. They're simply disgusting and seem bent on damaging our country as a whole. I don't even care what their excuses for their actions or positions are... if they have excuses, it is safe to assume that they are lies and more bullshiat because that is all I see from Republicans anymore.

For a group of people who profess so vehemently that they love their country, they sure as hell don't act like it. fark you Republicans... you have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt in my mind that you are incapable of sensible or reasonable governance and I sincerely hope that the Republican party is permanently disbanded.

And before any of you Republicans even bother to try and string together some bullshiat argument to throw in my direction, I am not pro-Democrat... I'm anti-Republican and you only have yourselves to blame.
 
2011-02-18 09:42:21 AM  

JohnnyC:

I can't even find any humor in Republican actions and positions anymore.

.


I dunno, the comments on that article are pretty amusing.
 
2011-02-18 09:42:46 AM  
For those interested, here's a list of "Czars" going back to FDR.

You might note that Bill Clinton had 8.

GW had 33.

President Obama has appointed 54. The issue isn't a "shadow government" but rather the focus that this President has given to some issues.

FTFA: The amendment would also prohibit funding for the director of the White House Office of Health Reform; the State Department's special envoy for climate change; the special adviser for green jobs, enterprise and innovation at the Council on Environmental Quality; the senior adviser to the secretary of the treasury assigned to the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry and senior counselor for manufacturing policy; the White House director of urban affairs; the special envoy to oversee the closure of Guantanamo Bay; the special master for TARP executive compensation at the Department of the Treasury; and the associate general counsel and chief diversity officer at the Federal Communications Commission.

AIDS Advisor, that's OK. Copyright, that's OK apparently. Drugs, been OK for years. What's interesting is that there the President has appointments for transparency issues, and that no one seems to be mentioning a position for faith based initiatives that he has continued from the previous Administration as well.

The President has appointed advisors on issues, to help him with large issues, and we have huge issues before us. The "shadow government" schtick comes down to wanting to limit the efficacy of the Administration on issues that threaten the current narrative.
 
2011-02-18 09:43:21 AM  
Honest to God, I thought this was going to be satire when I clicked on the link.

The circle is complete. Our government is officially a parody of our government.
 
2011-02-18 09:44:15 AM  

hubiestubert: The President has appointed advisors on issues, to help him with large issues, and we have huge issues before us. The "shadow government" schtick comes down to wanting to limit the efficacy of the Administration on issues that threaten the current narrative.


Duhhhh.

I've noticed the entire theme of the Right Wing's presence in government is "BREAK IT TEAR IT DOWN IF WE MAKE IT HARDER HE'LL LOOK BAD."
 
2011-02-18 09:44:27 AM  
The GOP knows that before you can be truly effective at exploitation, you have to test the stupidity of your marks.
 
2011-02-18 09:46:35 AM  
They do realize that Obama gets veto power over the budget, right?
 
2011-02-18 09:47:00 AM  

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.
 
2011-02-18 09:47:29 AM  
Republicans want a decider-er not some schlub who gets input from others.
 
2011-02-18 09:47:58 AM  

hubiestubert: 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?


To be fair, they're only defunding "czars" for positions they don't like. They're a-okay if they're funding czars for things like increasing oil drilling production or faith-based initiatives.

No, really:

"The amendment would also prohibit funding for the director of the White House Office of Health Reform; the State Department's special envoy for climate change; the special adviser for green jobs, enterprise and innovation at the Council on Environmental Quality; the senior adviser to the secretary of the treasury assigned to the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry and senior counselor for manufacturing policy; the White House director of urban affairs; the special envoy to oversee the closure of Guantanamo Bay; the special master for TARP executive compensation at the Department of the Treasury; and the associate general counsel and chief diversity officer at the Federal Communications Commission."
 
2011-02-18 09:48:16 AM  

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"?
 
2011-02-18 09:48:40 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?


Because back then the President wasn't a "Kenyan." (wink, wink)
 
2011-02-18 09:49:43 AM  

The Trooper: I dunno, the comments on that article are pretty amusing.


Seemed like it was filled to the brim with people who have been lied to and believe the lies. I don't find anything amusing about that... in fact, it's pretty farking lame.
 
2011-02-18 09:50:10 AM  

stoli n coke: 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?

Because back then the President wasn't a "Kenyan." (wink, wink)


Debt Reduction Commission headed by:

www.wearysloth.com
 
2011-02-18 09:51:46 AM  

FlashHarry: BillCo: It's fun to just make shiat up, isn't it?

better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt. (new window)


Well, he has no choice to act like a fool. When you plan to deliberately act stupid to troll for attention like he does, you has to be vocal about it.

Can't get bites for his pathetic ego if he's silent.
 
2011-02-18 09:51:49 AM  

ragekage: hubiestubert: 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?

To be fair, they're only defunding "czars" for positions they don't like. They're a-okay if they're funding czars for things like increasing oil drilling production or faith-based initiatives.

No, really:

"The amendment would also prohibit funding for the director of the White House Office of Health Reform; the State Department's special envoy for climate change; the special adviser for green jobs, enterprise and innovation at the Council on Environmental Quality; the senior adviser to the secretary of the treasury assigned to the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry and senior counselor for manufacturing policy; the White House director of urban affairs; the special envoy to oversee the closure of Guantanamo Bay; the special master for TARP executive compensation at the Department of the Treasury; and the associate general counsel and chief diversity officer at the Federal Communications Commission."


Pretty much what I noted earlier this morning.
 
2011-02-18 09:51:57 AM  
I think if we look carefully, we will be able to pinpoint the moment at which Congress became a Fark thread.
 
2011-02-18 09:53:15 AM  
Are they still giving cool names to the bills? Is this going to be the "F**k You Democrats, F**k You Right Up the Ass Act of 2011"? Or are they saving that name for something really big?
 
2011-02-18 09:53:34 AM  

UNC_Samurai: BillCo: UNC_Samurai: This isn't England, and the Republicans would be the one to have a shadow cabinet anyway.

It's fun to just make shiat up, isn't it?

It's fun to learn facts! (new window)


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.
 
2011-02-18 09:56:35 AM  
Next up: Warlock Prevention Act and axing Unicorn subsidies

www.oyunlab.com

you need to watch out for rogue unicorns
 
2011-02-18 09:57:39 AM  
Heh,
Obama should just flood the appointment process with nominees. Find people for all 489 of them and just sent all the nominations to the Senate on the same day.
 
2011-02-18 10:01:23 AM  
so did they stop any spending?

i820.photobucket.com
 
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.
 
2011-02-18 11:23:43 AM  

FlashHarry: BillCo: It's fun to just make shiat up, isn't it?

better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt. (new window)


[ohsnap.jpg]
 
2011-02-18 11:24:03 AM  
And of course, the Blue Dogs internalize the criticism again. Thanks Dan Boren.
 
2011-02-18 11:26:17 AM  

Lando Lincoln: This country is just getting too stupid for words.


Which is probably why O'Reilly is so successful with the non-thinking. His entire career is one big posturing noise. No words necessary.
 
2011-02-18 11:28:34 AM  

Karac: 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.


It's there in plain writing... The senate has the right to confirm (or defer to the president) any officer (someone on the payroll) of the government.

In essense, it behoves the president to play nice with congress or they have the ability to make his job a living hell.

But then again, the President's job has always to be the face of the congress (to do congress' bidding) but to also provide a check and balance to that use of power.. hence the executive office.

Right now, the powers of presidents are way out of line with their constitutional mandate.. and always have been. Because they are publically elected, people expect way more from them then they should.
 
2011-02-18 11:28:48 AM  

Loki-L: Doesn't Shadow Government normally refer to the opposition?


They're using the other meaning of the phrase... Copied directly from Wiki (but fairly accurate):

In its other use the phrase refers to what is sometimes called "the secret government" or "the invisible government" , an idea based on the notion that real and actual political power does not reside with publicly elected representatives (for example the United States Congress or the UK Cabinet) but with private individuals who are exercising power behind the scenes beyond the scrutiny of democratic institutions. According to this belief the official elected government is in reality subservient to the shadow government who are the true executive power.

Essentially... they're trying to pretend that President Obama doesn't think for himself and that he is controlled entirely by his advisors. Just more hot air from the blowhard machine.
 
2011-02-18 11:28:51 AM  
"we are also going to send him a signal that he is going to have to hold his administration accountable to the same transparency that he promised, but has unfortunately failed to deliver" . Ignore the fact that our side always defended executive branch secrecy 2001 - 2008, 1981 - 1992, ... , willya???

fixed
 
2011-02-18 11:30:14 AM  
So, you're against czars? You know who else was against czars?

COMMUNISTS.
 
2011-02-18 11:34:20 AM  

hubiestubert: For those interested, here's a list of "Czars" going back to FDR.

You might note that Bill Clinton had 8.

GW had 33.

President Obama has appointed 54. The issue isn't a "shadow government" but rather the focus that this President has given to some issues.


From your link:
Bill Clinton
# of titles = 8
# of appointees = 11
# of non-confirmed = 7
George W. Bush
# of titles = 33
# of appointees = 49
# of non-confirmed = 28
Barack Obama
# of titles = 37
# of appointees = 41
# of non-confirmed = 32

Why compare BC's and GW's # of titles to BO's supposed (54 in comment, only 41 on chart) # of appointees?
 
2011-02-18 11:34:45 AM  
img151.imageshack.us
You know who else hated czars?

/If we reduced the size and power of government, maybe we wouldn't need "czars" to help run it...
 
2011-02-18 11:38:52 AM  

MasterThief: You know who else hated czars?

/If we reduced the size and power of government, maybe we wouldn't need "czars" to help run it...


You know, people who lead countries with less than 350 million people have advisors too. I know, it's crazy, right? Turns out that actually leading a whole country is kind of a hard job that takes a lot of work!
 
2011-02-18 11:42:38 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.

As opposed to unknown oil industry lobbyists and fat cats making energy policy with Cheney behind sealed doors.
 
2011-02-18 11:45:08 AM  

MasterThief: You know who else hated czars?

/If we reduced the size and power of government, maybe we wouldn't need "czars" to help run it...



More likely we'd go back to corrupt local governance and decentralized tyranny.

Besides, I don't know what's so 'overbearing' about congress now.
 
2011-02-18 11:47:34 AM  

DarnoKonrad: MasterThief: You know who else hated czars?

/If we reduced the size and power of government, maybe we wouldn't need "czars" to help run it...


More likely we'd go back to corrupt local governance and decentralized tyranny.

Besides, I don't know what's so 'overbearing' about congress now.


They pass laws and levy taxes! Everyone knows that the US rebelled against England because King George was making the colonists pass laws, and raised everyone taxes.
 
2011-02-18 11:56:01 AM  
Hypocrisy, thy name is Republican.
 
2011-02-18 12:12:06 PM  

MasterThief: You know who else hated czars?

/If we reduced the size and power of government, maybe we wouldn't need "czars" to help run it...


Sadly, the world isn't exactly getting simpler. The list of advisors tends to go with the trending problems. Bush had someone tasked for Katrina, and TARP. Continuing issues likewise, it's helpful to have someone keep an eye on what multiple departments are doing, and help coordinate efforts for efficiency and to prevent a duplication of effort. With multiple issues, wars, conflicts and crisis points, it boils down to the President wanting to have folks to tap to run down what multiple departments are doing.

That's the thing. These are folks who help coordinate efforts for efficiency's sake. And efficiency is pretty much what the Distinguished Gentleman from Louisiana is against.

How DARE the government be more efficient?
 
2011-02-18 12:13:18 PM  
Is "shadow government" some kind of veiled racial reference?

Cuz Obama is black, you see.
 
2011-02-18 12:14:31 PM  
Oh look. winterwhile is back with the same off-topic spam he always posts.
 
2011-02-18 12:17:58 PM  

erveek: Oh look. winterwhile is back with the same off-topic spam he always posts.


Didn't notice... winterwhile is a worthless noise machine... one that I have had on mute for some time now.
 
2011-02-18 12:27:22 PM  

MasterThief: /If we reduced the size and power of government, maybe we wouldn't need "czars" to help run it...it would be a disaster due that theory relying upon the country's population being at 1860 levels.


FTFY

All of the modern Industrialized nations have these 'evil, overbearing gigantic' governments because their populations require it.

It's the same reason giving one teacher 500 students doesn't happen.

The "OMG Gub'mint too big" view is not relevant in the present.
 
2011-02-18 12:27:44 PM  

JohnnyC: Essentially... they're trying to pretend that President Obama doesn't think for himself and that he is controlled entirely by his advisors. Just more hot air from the blowhard machine.


Not really hot air, but a valid point. If the President defers to just one man's opinion (even if his job is soley to study and develop that opinion), who really hold the power? Given their job security and nebulous powers is it prudent to have one person presenting materials and analysis to the President? Obviously this doesn't present problems for some of the czars (stimulus oversight comes to mind) but given the variety of viewpoints for something like global warming, it's plain to see that a one man filter is not wise. While the opposition will argue that the real decisions and powers rest with the President himself, it's tough to deny that the information he receives flows through these advisors - and with that information is a vast amount of influence.
 
2011-02-18 12:30:06 PM  

catpuncher: JohnnyC: Essentially... they're trying to pretend that President Obama doesn't think for himself and that he is controlled entirely by his advisors. Just more hot air from the blowhard machine.

Not really hot air, but a valid point. If the President defers to just one man's opinion (even if his job is soley to study and develop that opinion), who really hold the power? Given their job security and nebulous powers is it prudent to have one person presenting materials and analysis to the President? Obviously this doesn't present problems for some of the czars (stimulus oversight comes to mind) but given the variety of viewpoints for something like global warming, it's plain to see that a one man filter is not wise. While the opposition will argue that the real decisions and powers rest with the President himself, it's tough to deny that the information he receives flows through these advisors - and with that information is a vast amount of influence.


That's kind of a silly argument. If I go ask a professional for advice, I don't necessarily "defer" to him - I just factor in his advice. It's like saying someone would "defer" to a book to be the single guiding factor in how they understand a subject - maybe it's just one part of how they understand?
 
2011-02-18 12:32:04 PM  

catpuncher: JohnnyC: Essentially... they're trying to pretend that President Obama doesn't think for himself and that he is controlled entirely by his advisors. Just more hot air from the blowhard machine.

Not really hot air, but a valid point. If the President defers to just one man's opinion (even if his job is soley to study and develop that opinion), who really hold the power? Given their job security and nebulous powers is it prudent to have one person presenting materials and analysis to the President? Obviously this doesn't present problems for some of the czars (stimulus oversight comes to mind) but given the variety of viewpoints for something like global warming, it's plain to see that a one man filter is not wise. While the opposition will argue that the real decisions and powers rest with the President himself, it's tough to deny that the information he receives flows through these advisors - and with that information is a vast amount of influence.



And you're getting the idea it works that way where? 'Czar' by the way, is a completely fictional media buzzword -- that can apply to any mid-level managerial position in the executive branch.
 
2011-02-18 12:34:37 PM  
It boils down to folks being upset that the President has advisors. Who are given authority to coordinate efforts across departments, to save time and effort. Who can distill down what those departments are doing, for ease of the President to break down issues to actionable issues, or what to watch for in the future.

The fear is that the President will be informed and efficient and that is terrifying for the House--while they vote on defining rape, defunding PBS, and asking questions about citizenship, the President is doing stuff. Which is, kinda, what the Executive does. Congress debates about what laws we pass, what spending we do, and the President actually acts on that. Which a lot of Congresscritters seem to have some problem with, because I don't think that some of them are really up on how our government is supposed to work. Congress doesn't do a lot. But how dare the Executive do something, and be informed on the issues that they're acting on.

Essentially, this is an issue of Powers envy.
 
2011-02-18 12:35:44 PM  

catpuncher: JohnnyC: Essentially... they're trying to pretend that President Obama doesn't think for himself and that he is controlled entirely by his advisors. Just more hot air from the blowhard machine.

Not really hot air, but a valid point. If the President defers to just one man's opinion (even if his job is soley to study and develop that opinion), who really hold the power? Given their job security and nebulous powers is it prudent to have one person presenting materials and analysis to the President? Obviously this doesn't present problems for some of the czars (stimulus oversight comes to mind) but given the variety of viewpoints for something like global warming, it's plain to see that a one man filter is not wise. While the opposition will argue that the real decisions and powers rest with the President himself, it's tough to deny that the information he receives flows through these advisors - and with that information is a vast amount of influence.


So the CEO of a company is totally controlled by his middle managers because they advise him on what to do with the company? I guess that means we've wrongly convicted a bunch of CEO's if all they were doing was what they were told by the true power wielders, who all got off with no jail time or fines. (see Skilling)
 
2011-02-18 12:39:50 PM  
erveek
Oh look. winterwhile is back with the same off-topic spam he always posts.

It's probably a bot.
 
2011-02-18 12:44:33 PM  

hubiestubert: It boils down to folks being upset that the President has advisors. Who are given authority to coordinate efforts across departments, to save time and effort. Who can distill down what those departments are doing, for ease of the President to break down issues to actionable issues, or what to watch for in the future.

The fear is that the President will be informed and efficient and that is terrifying for the House--while they vote on defining rape, defunding PBS, and asking questions about citizenship, the President is doing stuff. Which is, kinda, what the Executive does. Congress debates about what laws we pass, what spending we do, and the President actually acts on that. Which a lot of Congresscritters seem to have some problem with, because I don't think that some of them are really up on how our government is supposed to work. Congress doesn't do a lot. But how dare the Executive do something, and be informed on the issues that they're acting on.

Essentially, this is an issue of Powers envy.


Unconstitutionally appointed advisors.

So I guess in your little world the means always justifies the ends?
 
2011-02-18 12:44:52 PM  

LasersHurt: That's kind of a silly argument. If I go ask a professional for advice, I don't necessarily "defer" to him - I just factor in his advice. It's like saying someone would "defer" to a book to be the single guiding factor in how they understand a subject - maybe it's just one part of how they understand?


When I act as a consultant for restaurants, I make suggestions. Strong ones very often. I break down food cost, labor cost, physical plant issues, market share, advertising, licensing, equipment condition, on hand capital, debt, and more. I look at the whole picture, from a bit of a distance, and I make suggestions on how to improve bottom line, improve the working conditions, and highlight issues that will be important in the future. I often make very strong suggestions, because usually you don't bring in a consultant when things are rosey. I try to keep my costs low on that because if folks are struggling, you don't drop a hammer of MOAR charges to make their situation worse.

I get brought in, because I have expertise in the field. Experience from years in the business, in a bunch of different environments. Folks get a plan from me, and then it's up to them if they follow my suggestions or not. Ultimately, it's up to them if they want to succeed or not--and I've seen folks only implement a few suggestions that I've made, and struggle on with others. Some threw the book out the window, and shrugged off advice, and went under fast.

You bring in experts for a reason. You have to decide on how to act on those experts' suggestions.
 
2011-02-18 12:48:06 PM  

LasersHurt: catpuncher: JohnnyC: Essentially... they're trying to pretend that President Obama doesn't think for himself and that he is controlled entirely by his advisors. Just more hot air from the blowhard machine.

Not really hot air, but a valid point. If the President defers to just one man's opinion (even if his job is soley to study and develop that opinion), who really hold the power? Given their job security and nebulous powers is it prudent to have one person presenting materials and analysis to the President? Obviously this doesn't present problems for some of the czars (stimulus oversight comes to mind) but given the variety of viewpoints for something like global warming, it's plain to see that a one man filter is not wise. While the opposition will argue that the real decisions and powers rest with the President himself, it's tough to deny that the information he receives flows through these advisors - and with that information is a vast amount of influence.

That's kind of a silly argument. If I go ask a professional for advice, I don't necessarily "defer" to him - I just factor in his advice. It's like saying someone would "defer" to a book to be the single guiding factor in how they understand a subject - maybe it's just one part of how they understand?


When your day is scheduled in 15 minute blocks on a wide variety of subjects that all demand immediate action and you have the information presented to you by just one professional without the luxury of seeking a second opinion the argument doesn't seem so silly to me. Yes, the President gets to make his own decision. It's based on the information presented to him. Doesn't anybody read to the end of the paragraph?

Darno, thanks for the etymology. I had no clue it wasn't the actual title that we use.

fuhfuh, you're being willfully obtuse and putting words in my mouth.
 
2011-02-18 12:48:59 PM  
hubiestubert, socialist restaurant czar.
 
2011-02-18 12:49:18 PM  

dwrash: Unconstitutionally appointed advisors.

So I guess in your little world the means always justifies the ends?


The President is barred by the Constitution from employing advisors?

See my pic up the thread. How Unconstitutional were those cats?

How dare the President be informed?
 
2011-02-18 12:52:24 PM  

catpuncher: When your day is scheduled in 15 minute blocks on a wide variety of subjects that all demand immediate action and you have the information presented to you by just one professional without the luxury of seeking a second opinion the argument doesn't seem so silly to me. Yes, the President gets to make his own decision. It's based on the information presented to him. Doesn't anybody read to the end of the paragraph?


So, you're arguing for *more* presidential advisers? As in, he should have multiple advisers per position so he doesn't rely on the opinion of just one?

Sure, why not.
 
2011-02-18 12:52:26 PM  

hubiestubert: dwrash: Unconstitutionally appointed advisors.

So I guess in your little world the means always justifies the ends?

The President is barred by the Constitution from employing advisors?

See my pic up the thread. How Unconstitutional were those cats?

How dare the President be informed?


BEING INFORMED IS NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION. The president should go back to traditional methods: Casting runes.
 
2011-02-18 12:53:09 PM  

Jackson Herring: hubiestubert, socialist restaurant czar.


Nah. I am all for maximizing profit. Drives me nuts seeing folks throwing money away on useless crap though, on vanity projects, or letting themselves get gouged on product. I like to get folks down to 25% for food cost, labor cost, and 7%-19% for liquor cost--it varies from week to week depending on how stock holds up--and give them a bit more than a 10% profit margin.

On a serious note: if you don't have operating capital for at least two to three years going into opening a restaurant, save your damn money. Or just throw it into the street if you'd rather, because it'll save you some heartache in the end.
 
2011-02-18 12:53:41 PM  
We went through eight years where the figure-head President wasn't even calling the shots and now the Senate needs to determine who the new black President gets to use as an advisor. Got it.
 
2011-02-18 12:54:27 PM  
If the President can't handle the responsibilities himself, he shouldn't have taken the job.

/OTIO
//I hope
 
2011-02-18 12:59:00 PM  

hubiestubert: On a serious note: if you don't have operating capital for at least two to three years going into opening a restaurant, save your damn money. Or just throw it into the street if you'd rather, because it'll save you some heartache in the end.


amen. Old man leases space to a wine bar. They've been open for under a year and are already 3 months behind on rent. They put a fortune into the place, he's gonna wind up throwing them out and using all their work to jack the rent up on the next tenant.
 
2011-02-18 12:59:53 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: BEING INFORMED IS NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION. The president should go back to traditional methods: Casting runes.


It's sort of fun to watch folks who sat back and cheered on the expansion of Executive Privilege and its powers, now suddenly get bees under their bonnet about UNCONSTITUTIONAL POWERZ!

It's simply Powers envy on the part of Congress, and an enormous amount of cognitive dissonance for the folks who can't parse words too well without coaching.
 
2011-02-18 01:03:31 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: The president should go back to traditional methods: Casting runes.


Are horcruxes specifically forbidden in the constitution?
 
2011-02-18 01:04:33 PM  

hubiestubert: A Dark Evil Omen: BEING INFORMED IS NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION. The president should go back to traditional methods: Casting runes.

It's sort of fun to watch folks who sat back and cheered on the expansion of Executive Privilege and its powers, now suddenly get bees under their bonnet about UNCONSTITUTIONAL POWERZ!

It's simply Powers envy on the part of Congress, and an enormous amount of cognitive dissonance for the folks who can't parse words too well without coaching.


Didn't like it back then.. and don't like it now with Obama doubling the about of czars.. and there is no cognitive dissonance on my part, as the little paragraph in the constitution is very clear on this and makes perfect common sense.

And if the president doesn't get rid of them, the congress has every right to deprive him of the funds needed to pay for these unconstitutional positions.

/wish they did this a long time ago and nipped it in the bud before letting it spiral out of control like it has.
 
2011-02-18 01:05:20 PM  

Jackson Herring: A Dark Evil Omen: The president should go back to traditional methods: Casting runes.

Are horcruxes specifically forbidden in the constitution?


So that's what that star in the DC layout is for!

It all makes sense now!
 
2011-02-18 01:06:06 PM  

The Homer Tax: So, you're arguing for *more* presidential advisers? As in, he should have multiple advisers per position so he doesn't rely on the opinion of just one?

Sure, why not.


Yes, actually. It'd be impractical for a lot of the current positions, but for something like regulatory actions and global warming, wouldn't you see the advantages of a rotating committee of experts where dissenting viewpoints could be heard? Don't focus on just that example by the way. The idea is to increase quality information without having to filter it through just one bureaucrat. A lot of these "positions" (that's for you Darno) crop up quickly out of necessity, not design. The legislative branch was meticulously designed. The executive branch is still just winging it.
 
2011-02-18 01:06:19 PM  

skullkrusher: hubiestubert: On a serious note: if you don't have operating capital for at least two to three years going into opening a restaurant, save your damn money. Or just throw it into the street if you'd rather, because it'll save you some heartache in the end.

amen. Old man leases space to a wine bar. They've been open for under a year and are already 3 months behind on rent. They put a fortune into the place, he's gonna wind up throwing them out and using all their work to jack the rent up on the next tenant.


I try to pick and choose the consultations I do, because I want folks to succeed. And there are times when I see clients that I know aren't going to listen to a damn word that I say, but are going to try to use my fee as a "business expense" write off that isn't actually going to do a damn thing for them. I get that vibe off an initial consult, and I try to shuffle them off elsewhere, because they're time sinks and albatrosses around your neck. Too often you see folks who just don't do the market research, don't examine traffic flow and patterns, don't look at locations, and just figure that they'll wing it, because how hard can it be?

Worse, are the folks who have no professional cooking or restaurant experience who figure that they'll be fine. Just don't understand that it's a business and figure it will be "fun."

25 years in this business, and it is fun. But starting a restaurant? Of my own? Hells no. I get enough of the agita already running joints for folks...
 
2011-02-18 01:10:21 PM  

hubiestubert: 25 years in this business, and it is fun. But starting a restaurant? Of my own? Hells no. I get enough of the agita already running joints for folks...


after my dad retired from the NYPD he went into the restaurant business. We literally did not see him for days at a time as he'd come home long after we were in bed and would be out of the house before we got up. He's since gone into semi-retirement and does mostly real estate now but this went on for 20 years or so. Can be extremely lucrative and it is an exciting challenge but that shiat ain't easy.
 
2011-02-18 01:47:45 PM  
shadow government?

www.xfilesuniverse.com
 
2011-02-18 01:59:26 PM  
Subby, It's spelled ASK.

/pet peeve
 
2011-02-18 01:59:45 PM  

AdamK: shadow government?


Like Harrison Ford I'm getting Frantic. Like Sting I'm tantric.
 
2011-02-18 02:02:00 PM  

catpuncher: When your day is scheduled in 15 minute blocks on a wide variety of subjects that all demand immediate action and you have the information presented to you by just one professional without the luxury of seeking a second opinion the argument doesn't seem so silly to me. Yes, the President gets to make his own decision. It's based on the information presented to him. Doesn't anybody read to the end of the paragraph?


How about we take a more reasonable view of it. First, not everything requires immediate action. Secondly, he absolutely has the luxury on nearly every subject to seek multiple opinions on anything. Beyond that, the people he hires to research these subjects don't just examine one point of view and most of them have teams of researchers working under them. You also don't know how many different advisors he consults on any given subject. However, at the end, it is up to him to decide, the decision is not made by the advisors...

Personally, based on what I know of President Obama, the idea that he would hire close minded people who present only heavily biased and inaccurate portraits of the subject is laughable. It doesn't fit at all.

As for climate change, no... deniers aren't worth listening to or putting up with their inane and useless pseudo-scientific bullshiat. I think he should stick with the scientists, the data, and the real information. Perhaps you picked a bad example, but you might as well have said that he should listen to the Flat Earthers and people who believe the moon landings were faked when considering a manned mission to Mars.

It is easy to portray something in the extreme and make it look worse than it really is... very easy. Now, if you could find examples where President Obama has taken advice from one of his advisors (or czars if you want to call them that), and it turned out that he was completely mislead by his advisor and believed it enough to act on that bad advice, you might have an argument. I haven not personally seen any situation where that has been the case, but you might have an example to share?

Please keep in mind your criteria for fitting with your description:

1. Information must come from one advisor.
2. Information presented was plainly bad information.
3. The bad information was as a result of the bias of the presenter.
4. President Obama sought no other points of view from anyone else.
5. President Obama had to make an immediate decision about the subject without the luxury of any additional information.

Good luck... I sincerely don't believe an example exists of it going down the way you portrayed it with President Obama in particular, but I could be wrong.

Hell... even Bush's science advisor told him that he was 90% certain that global warming was being heavily influenced by our man-made sources. Bush didn't listen to him, but when did Bush really listen to anyone that didn't have dollar signs in his eyes or a cross hanging from his neck (or both)?

But please... find us that example of Obama taking some bad advice from an advisor on something and running with it. Should be interesting to see what you come up with.
 
2011-02-18 02:16:05 PM  

skullkrusher: AdamK: shadow government?

Like Harrison Ford I'm getting Frantic. Like Sting I'm tantric.


Not that I'm versed in such things, but that sounds like it would be a good line in a rap song.
 
2011-02-18 02:18:35 PM  

Diogenes: skullkrusher: AdamK: shadow government?

Like Harrison Ford I'm getting Frantic. Like Sting I'm tantric.

Not that I'm versed in such things, but that sounds like it would be a good line in a rap song.


hehe maybe if the rapper were a bunch of nerdy Canadians

www.eurthisnthat.com
 
2011-02-18 03:08:39 PM  
hubiestubert
On a serious note: if you don't have operating capital for at least two to three years going into opening a restaurant, save your damn money. Or just throw it into the street if you'd rather, because it'll save you some heartache in the end.

Interesting. What about buying an existing bar/restaurant with an established customer base? A guy I knew many years ago thought about doing it, but he said he figured out it would take around six years of all his profits, if things went well, to pay for the business. In other words he'd make nothing for himself during that time. I'm not sure that calculation makes much sense given that his loan on the restaurant/bar would probably be much longer than six years, but he concluded it wasn't in his best financial interests to do it.

/oddly enough he does very well selling coins instead
//didn't realize there were enough coin collectors left for that
 
2011-02-18 03:50:59 PM  

JohnnyC: But please... find us that example of Obama taking some bad advice from an advisor on something and running with it. Should be interesting to see what you come up with.


A reactionary attitude doesn't solve problems to come. Apparently discussion of the structure of government is emotional for you, as you seem to have personal knowledge of President Obama. I haven't mentioned President Obama once so far, nor limited my comments to him. Why you're limiting your search criteria to President Obama is a mystery to me, as he is not the only president who has appointed advisors to executive posts. Why you seem to think that there are only two sides to global warming (it exists or doesn't) and have ascribed the denier position to me as well is also a mystery to me. I'm well aware that all of his different "czars" have subordinates who gather information from multiple sources and that the ultimate decision lies with the president. For somebody who espouses taking a reasonable position, then immediately takes every example given to the extreme seems a bit disingenuous.
Once again, this isn't about President Obama, but the structural design of the executive branch and how it can be improved. I don't expect one man to run the entire federal government by himself. I fully expect directors of executive departments. However I believe that often these positions are given undue weight when considering policy and that at the very least their appointment should be bipartisan and thoughtfully considered. The potential for abuse (willful or negligent) does exist. Nixon and Roosevelt are specific examples of following their advisors extremely closely, and Nixon even said as much. Expand your search criteria and I'm sure I can find you an example of a president getting bad advice from somebody and running with it.
 
2011-02-18 04:47:11 PM  

patrick767: hubiestubert
On a serious note: if you don't have operating capital for at least two to three years going into opening a restaurant, save your damn money. Or just throw it into the street if you'd rather, because it'll save you some heartache in the end.

Interesting. What about buying an existing bar/restaurant with an established customer base? A guy I knew many years ago thought about doing it, but he said he figured out it would take around six years of all his profits, if things went well, to pay for the business. In other words he'd make nothing for himself during that time. I'm not sure that calculation makes much sense given that his loan on the restaurant/bar would probably be much longer than six years, but he concluded it wasn't in his best financial interests to do it.

/oddly enough he does very well selling coins instead
//didn't realize there were enough coin collectors left for that


Bars alone have a better profit margin--you do have to invest in stock, and keep a fair amount on hand, but if you price yourself right, you can run a 15% bar cost, depending on how you price your drinks. Tap systems are expensive, but buying one whole cloth means that you're already buying a system. It really depends on how established the place is, and I'd still suggest going IN with operating capital of at least two years, minimum. You should factor your loan in operating costs--rent and mortgage should only run you 30% of every dollar brought in if you do your homework, but there's still licensing, odd labor fluctuations, and emergencies like your toilets getting a bad case of the drunkies. Labor should include what you plan on paying yourself too.
 
2011-02-18 05:24:44 PM  

catpuncher: Why you're limiting your search criteria to President Obama is a mystery to me, as he is not the only president who has appointed advisors to executive posts.


This thread is specifically about Republicans trying to interfere with President Obama's advisors. He is also the only current sitting President and whether or not previous Presidents did or did not listen closely to their advisors has no bearing on how President Obama conducts himself in relation to his advisors or if Republicans should be pushing to interfere. Perhaps it was my mistake that you were on topic and not speaking in absolutely general terms about the idea of having advisors.

catpuncher: Why you seem to think that there are only two sides to global warming (it exists or doesn't) and have ascribed the denier position to me as well is also a mystery to me.


It's no doubt that is a mystery. No where did I imply your position at all. I merely denounced your previous suggestion that a committee be formed which specifically included dissenters (in this case, global warming deniers would be the dissenters). In order to be a global warming denier, one must engage in willful ignorance. It is a fact that the overall global temperature of the Earth is increasing, having people on the committee to advise the President who actively ignore that fact (for non-scientific reasons) would simply be an attempt to undermine actual progress.

You say I'm taking examples to the extreme, but the only example I gave was meant to be extreme to illustrate how ridiculous it sounds to suggest that on a panel that advises the President on climate, it should include people who believe that global warming is a conspiracy.

catpuncher: However I believe that often these positions are given undue weight when considering policy and that at the very least their appointment should be bipartisan and thoughtfully considered.


What you believe is irrelevant. You don't really know how much weight their findings are given. It may be a lot, it may be a little, and it definitely will vary from President to President and from subject to subject. I disagree with the bipartisan appointment idea. Republicans have been actively trying to sabotage this administration and cannot be trusted to make honest decisions about advisors (or anything at all for that matter). However, even proposing that the current appointments weren't thoughtfully considered is ridiculous. Of course they were/are... they don't just draw names from a hat.

I think if you can find abuses that are occurring right now, that is one thing. But you seem to be saying, "Republicans are justified in this", because there is a chance of corruption. I'm saying that Republicans are attempting to undermine our currently sitting President any way they can and that this is yet another in a long list of ways they have tried to do just that.

You might not like advisors, and that's fine, but without specific examples of how the current President's relationship with advisors is unbalanced or doing something wrong, I don't see how you justify the need for a change in the way we do things right this second.

The mere fact that Republicans were targeting particular advisors should have clued you into realizing that this is just another way for them to try and fark with President Obama specifically. They aren't addressing a wider problem. And really, the only way in which previous czars are their relationship with the President is in any way relevant speaks to the motive of the Republicans. If they really had a problem with them, they would have addressed the issue when they had a Republican in office. Hint: This isn't about the czars...
 
2011-02-18 06:29:24 PM  
JohnnyC:content

Point 1: Yes, the general article is about President Obama specifically. He is not immune to systemic weakness that plagues all presidents.

Point 2: Nowhere did I endorse global warming deniers, but experts. Draw your own conclusions.

Point 3: I go from being accused to wanting more advisors to not liking advisors at all. Interesting. Anyway, I never said that the personages were not thoughtfully considered, I said that the new departments and divisions of the executive branch were not thoughtfully designed. And once again, you're missing the point that we should be using now as an opportunity to promote ideas to correct a deficiency in the workings of the executive branch, specifically unapproved presidential appointees. You seem to be saying, "Republicans are evil and bad and we shouldn't have to work with them; how dare they disagree with our policy?! Who do they think they are attempting to have a say in how government is run? We're taking our ball and going home." Sorry bud, but the working part of the system blocked a unilateral loophole that's been working for far too long.
 
2011-02-18 07:07:19 PM  

catpuncher: I go from being accused to wanting more advisors to not liking advisors at all.


Why do you keep trying to play the victim? You gave the impression you didn't like an advisor and would prefer a committee/advisor team kind of thing. I didn't project or create any of your stated opinions.

catpuncher: Point 2: Nowhere did I endorse global warming deniers, but experts. Draw your own conclusions.


catpuncher: Yes, actually. It'd be impractical for a lot of the current positions, but for something like regulatory actions and global warming, wouldn't you see the advantages of a rotating committee of experts where dissenting viewpoints could be heard?


Pardon me, but the only dissenting viewpoints on climate change/global warming I ever see is from deniers, not experts. If you can find an actual 'expert' who makes an honest claim that it doesn't exist, I'd be very surprised.

And no... I'm not saying Republicans are evil. Evil is a religious concept and not one I'm keen on. I am saying Republicans can't be trusted as they have demonstrated and stated that their goal is to undermine President Obama, not to honestly govern. They aren't trying to improve our government or the way it's ran. They are only trying to undermine the current admin. End of story.

For the record, I'm an independent. I'm anti-Republican because they've proven themselves to be not only worthless as a governing party, but actually a detriment to our society on a whole. I am not, however pro-Democrat. Democrats obviously have their issues as well, but at least they aren't purposefully trying to cause more problems in an effort to increase their political power. The Republicans have, and continue to do so.
 
2011-02-18 09:33:20 PM  
Scalise said the measure blocking the czars also makes good fiscal sense.

"We are going to save millions of taxpayer dollars


Thanks for the effort, but stop wasting dollars to save pennies you ignorant piece of shiat.
 
Displayed 156 of 156 comments



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