T-Dub Posted October 13, 2012 Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 [quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1350088717' post='1169473'] Look it is what it is. I don't care if it comes out of Jennifer Gardner's mouth, I don't care if it comes out of Rev. Jesse Jackson's mouth, I don't care if Abraham Lincoln comes back as a zombie and it comes out of HIS mouth, it's the truth. Try to spin it however you want, but in the end not only will you look like a fool, but you'll be wrong. [/quote] Honestly? I don't even know what you're talking about at this point, as far as what you think is "true" or not. I do know that Beck is a rabidly racist dickhead, though. If he said "bacon is good" I would probably start to question it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted October 13, 2012 Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 [quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1350088287' post='1169468'] You've got to work on the cynicism, Vol. It's not coming through clear enough! I suppose that it depends on one's preferences. [color=#ff0000]For me, it's a case where the Obama crew hasn't gone far enough.[/color] Others view it differently. [/quote] So much this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bunghole| Posted October 13, 2012 Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 [quote name='T-Dub' timestamp='1350090956' post='1169485'] If he said "bacon is good" I would probably start to question it. [/quote] C'mon now, there are some universal truths no matter who says them. Is Beck a Jew? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewdog Posted October 13, 2012 Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 [quote name='T-Dub' timestamp='1350090956' post='1169485'] Honestly? I don't even know what you're talking about at this point, as far as what you think is "true" or not. I do know that Beck is a rabidly racist dickhead, though. If he said "bacon is good" I would probably start to question it. [/quote] First you asked me if the term Czar was actually used to represent the advisers Obama has in the White House. I could have posted 100 of them. Then you said he doesn't have one that is considered a Radical Muslim. Well Obama's Czar to Muslims is a woman, and she and ironically she has spoken publicly of her support for Sharia Law. Glenn Beck pointed out that some of the Czar positions that Obama created report directly to him and have no system of checks and balances, which is unconstitutional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Dub Posted October 13, 2012 Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 [quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1350092886' post='1169493'] First you asked me if the term Czar was actually used to represent the advisers Obama has in the White House. I could have posted 100 of them. [/quote] That term has been used to describe people in charge of this or that policy long before Obama took office. What you said was that it was a new [i]official[/i] title. I'm not sure why that would be important, but you've yet to post a single example of that being true, let alone 100. Which is understandable, because there aren't any. [quote]Then you said he doesn't have one that is considered a Radical Muslim. Well Obama's Czar to Muslims is a woman, and she and ironically she has spoken publicly of her support for Sharia Law.[/quote] Still waiting on a source. Hint; "Glenn Beck said" is [i]not[/i] a credible source of information. [quote]Glenn Beck pointed out that some of the Czar positions that Obama created report directly to him and have no system of checks and balances, which is unconstitutional. [/quote] Again, Obama is by no means the first person to have informal "czars" in charge of certain policies or issues. In fact, wiki has a whole list of them. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars"]http://en.wikipedia....ve_branch_czars[/url] Note that FDR apparently started the custom, and had the most in his cabinet until Bush the 2nd, who had 33 (3 times as many as FDR). Obama has 5 more, by their count. By that list, the huge increase actually came under Bush. Wikipedia isn't much of a source, either, I'll grant you.. but since you keep quoting Glenn Beck obviously credibility isn't a big issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewdog Posted October 13, 2012 Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 I'm not going to go back and do more work to prove anything to you. I posted the links already. Czar has been a titled used on some staff members in the White House, but not even close to the extent Obama has used it. If you pay even a little bit of attention, not all Czars report directly to the President. It's the ones that do, that are unconstitutional. Funny also how you have so quickly gone from saying there is no such thing as Czars, to well other people used that term long before Obama. How can I take anything you say with a grain of salt, when you can't keep your facts straight on what you said earlier in this thread? I'm not going to waste any time with you anymore because either A. you're brain dead, or B. being a troll and trying to get a rise out of me. Which in all actuality, all you are doing is ruining a thread that I believe some of us were enjoying. Get bent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bunghole| Posted October 13, 2012 Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 Lew, the title "czar" isn't new, nor is it an unconsitutional position as a Presidential appointee, which is what T-Dub has been trying to point out to you. Doesn't anyone remember Barry McCaffrey? Clinton's "drug czar", appointed in 1996: [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_McCaffrey"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_McCaffrey[/url] And this was a decorated, West Point educated former general! Obama would be so lucky as to have someone with military experience on his staff! (which is one of my main quibbles with him). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Dub Posted October 13, 2012 Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 [quote] I'm not going to waste any time with you anymore because either A. you're brain dead, or B. being a troll and trying to get a rise out of me. Which in all actuality, all you are doing is ruining a thread that I believe some of us were enjoying. Get bent. [/quote] Right, you were just having an intelligent discussion about all the things you heard Glenn Beck say, and then I ruined everything by questioning whether any of it was actually true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewdog Posted October 13, 2012 Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 [quote name='Bunghole' timestamp='1350096330' post='1169508'] Lew, the title "czar" isn't new, nor is it an unconsitutional position as a Presidential appointee, which is what T-Dub has been trying to point out to you. Doesn't anyone remember Barry McCaffrey? Clinton's "drug czar", appointed in 1996: [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_McCaffrey"]http://en.wikipedia....Barry_McCaffrey[/url] And this was a decorated, West Point educated former general! Obama would be so lucky as to have someone with military experience on his staff! (which is one of my main quibbles with him). [/quote] I didn't say it was unique to Obama. I pointed out he has appointed the most Czars ever. He has made some poor decisions in who he appointed as well. Lastly it is unconstitutional if a Czar only reports back to Obama only. They are a part of the Executive branch, and as such must have either the Judicial or Legislative branch as a buffer between the two. Obama has 32 Czars! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bunghole| Posted October 13, 2012 Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 [quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1350096675' post='1169514'] I didn't say it was unique to Obama. I pointed out he has appointed the most Czars ever. He has made some poor decisions in who he appointed as well. Lastly it is unconstitutional if a Czar only reports back to Obama only. They are a part of the Executive branch, and as such must have either the Judicial or Legislative branch as a buffer between the two. Obama has 32 Czars! [/quote] Yeah and GWB had the most "unconstitutional signing statements" than any other President. What's your point? There exists Constitutional oversight, Congressional oversight and Judicial oversight over all these things. The fact that you are skirting is that Obama has appointed more [i]unproven[/i] people (like himself) with little to no political or (especially) military experience than any President I can recall. The lack of military experience is what galls me. Other than that, its business as usual. Just because you claim something to be unconstitutional doesn't make it so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewdog Posted October 13, 2012 Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 [quote name='Bunghole' timestamp='1350096950' post='1169516'] Yeah and GWB had the most "unconstitutional signing statements" than any other President. What's your point? There exists Constitutional oversight, Congressional oversight and Judicial oversight over all these things. The fact that you are skirting is that Obama has appointed more [i]unproven[/i] people (like himself) with little to no political or (especially) military experience than any President I can recall. The lack of military experience is what galls me. Other than that, its business as usual. Just because you claim something to be unconstitutional doesn't make it so. [/quote] Wait are you agreeing with me? I think I see a little smile....yeah that's definitely a smirk. There it is... That is a sad commentary of politics today. Each in coming President thinks it is more important to surround himself with people that think like him and will support him all the way, instead appointing the most qualified people who will best for the country. That sounded so logical I had to go back and read it again. I'm actually surprised there hasn't been more mudslinging during this election. Neither Romney or Obama have strong foreign ties, Obama has his finger on the social programs and issues (Except Obama-care), and Romney is a guy that knows how to make money. So no matter which guy wins the election they are going to have a weakness. Unfortunately for us, they won't fill their weakness with someone who knows what they are doing, instead it will be someone who will have their back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bunghole| Posted October 13, 2012 Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 [quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1350097381' post='1169520'] Wait are you agreeing with me? I think I see a little smile....yeah that's definitely a smirk. There it is... That is a sad commentary of politics today. Each in coming President thinks it is more important to surround himself with people that think like him and will support him all the way, instead appointing the most qualified people who will best for the country. That sounded so logical I had to go back and read it again. I'm actually surprised there hasn't been more mudslinging during this election. Neither Romney or Obama have strong foreign ties, Obama has his finger on the social programs and issues (Except Obama-care), and Romney is a guy that knows how to make money. So no matter which guy wins the election they are going to have a weakness. Unfortunately for us, they won't fill their weakness with someone who knows what they are doing, instead it will be someone who will have their back. [/quote] No, I actually think that Romney would have more qualified people in his Cabinet than Obama currently does. Not that it may matter in the end because I am not certain he would listen to them. Anyway, why are you arguing with me when you should be watching the Vice TV video of North Korea? Seriously dude...seriously. Get some insight. Its a rare glimpse from a Western journalist's POV into a closed, brainwashed, starving country. Watch it now, and when come back, report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewdog Posted October 13, 2012 Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 [quote name='Bunghole' timestamp='1350097657' post='1169522'] No, I actually think that Romney would have more qualified people in his Cabinet than Obama currently does. Not that it may matter in the end because I am not certain he would listen to them. Anyway, why are you arguing with me when you should be watching the Vice TV video of North Korea? Seriously dude...seriously. Get some insight. Its a rare glimpse from a Western journalist's POV into a closed, brainwashed, starving country. Watch it now, and when come back, report. [/quote] I can't just hit play and watch it. The internet connection my landlord has, its fast enough to play games most of the time, but it sucks for downloads, uploads, and streaming video. I usual have to start it, pause it, let it load 75% of the way or more, then I can watch it. Ghetto I know, but the wireless internet is included in the rent, so I can't complain too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewdog Posted October 13, 2012 Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 From what I have watched so far I feel like I am watching Jackass, and I'm waiting for Weeman to jump off a bus and hit somebody in the nuts with a wiffle ball bat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bunghole| Posted October 13, 2012 Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 Usual excuses.[quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1350098029' post='1169524'] From what I have watched so far I feel like I am watching Jackass, and I'm waiting for Weeman to jump off a bus and hit somebody in the nuts with a wiffle ball bat. [/quote]That's ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewdog Posted October 13, 2012 Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 [quote name='Bunghole' timestamp='1350098084' post='1169525'] Usual excuses. That's ridiculous. [/quote] I actually meant it as a compliment in a way. It seems legit, the camera quality doesn't look like it came from a cell phone or $30 digital job from Odd Lots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bunghole| Posted October 13, 2012 Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 [quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1350098613' post='1169529'] I actually meant it as a compliment in a way. It seems legit, the camera quality doesn't look like it came from a cell phone or $30 digital job from Odd Lots. [/quote] Then watch it and quit arguing with me about it until you have. Not buying the internet excuse when your responses on here are quick as a jackrabbit fleeing from a shotgun's blast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewdog Posted October 13, 2012 Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 Done with the first video. I will never let anyone tell me something is impossible. If they do I will tell them to watch those movies. How a 5 foot nothing, bottle bottom wearing, tool like Il can snowball an entire country to listen to him, making them believe he is the smartest, bravest leader on the planet, I have no clue. It was really funny when they said the U.S. tried to disguise the USS Pueblo as a passenger ship, had me rolling. It was a big ass grey ship with nautical call signs on it! I couldn't imagine being the host of this film. On one hand your scared shitless you might do something to get taken prisoner, while on the other hand, walking around looking at stuff going, WTF is this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bunghole| Posted October 13, 2012 Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 [quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1350100077' post='1169536'] Done with the first video. I will never let anyone tell me something is impossible. If they do I will tell them to watch those movies. How a 5 foot nothing, bottle bottom wearing, tool like Il can snowball an entire country to listen to him, making them believe he is the smartest, bravest leader on the planet, I have no clue. It was really funny when they said the U.S. tried to disguise the USS Pueblo as a passenger ship, had me rolling. It was a big ass grey ship with nautical call signs on it! I couldn't imagine being the host of this film. On one hand your scared shitless you might do something to get taken prisoner, while on the other hand, walking around looking at stuff going, WTF is this? [/quote] Dude, watch their video on Liberia. If you don't cry, you have no soul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewdog Posted October 13, 2012 Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 It's just so funny things like posting on a message board about stuff like this, could get us serious prison time in countries like North Korea. I had my first wake up call when I almost got arrested in Bulgaria. Until a person visits a city like that you have no clue how good you have it. In Bulgaria you have to pay to use the bathroom. Oh and yeah, if you want to wipe your ass you got to buy toilet paper too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewdog Posted October 13, 2012 Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 First two videos down, one to go. I am going to let it download over night and watch it tomorrow. The more I think of it, the more I believe that the people of North Korea aren't mistreated. They are definitely brainwashed, but if they didn't have the luxuries of food, shelter, and fun before now, how do they know they are missing anything right? I actually feel sorry for those people. It really says a lot that someone who gets so little can be so patriotic, but I truly believe if we ever got into a man on man war with them, they would give up just as quickly as Saddam's Imperial guards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Lucid| Posted October 13, 2012 Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 [quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1350096675' post='1169514'] I didn't say it was unique to Obama. I pointed out he has appointed the most Czars ever. He has made some poor decisions in who he appointed as well. Lastly it is unconstitutional if a Czar only reports back to Obama only. They are a part of the Executive branch, and as such must have either the Judicial or Legislative branch as a buffer between the two. Obama has 32 Czars! [/quote] This is why Glenn Beck has a bad reputation.. Because he puts ideas into peoples heads like this that are entirely false. There is nothing unconstitutional about the appointment of executive staff members. What you call them is irrelevant, they have no more power than is granted to the executive branch constitutionally. The president can't name an "Abortion Czar" to overturn Roe v. Wade, or do anything else which is not law passed by congress, or rulings of the supreme court. All these "Czars" do is manage current law and policy.. The "Drug Czar" simply enforces drug laws which have been passed by congress and upheld by or not challenged in the supreme courts, and the budget is passed by congress. All the checks and balances are in place Now, you can question the focus of an administration in appointing staff to oversee policy (for example I think the drug war is a waste and thus think the appointment of an executive staff member to oversee it's execution is stupid), or those people they put in place to do the job. But acting like it is some how some sort of unconstitutional power grab is kind of ignorant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewdog Posted October 13, 2012 Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 [quote name='Lucid' timestamp='1350132745' post='1169560'] This is why Glenn Beck has a bad reputation.. Because he puts ideas into peoples heads like this that are entirely false. There is nothing unconstitutional about the appointment of executive staff members. What you call them is irrelevant, they have no more power than is granted to the executive branch constitutionally. The president can't name an "Abortion Czar" to overturn Roe v. Wade, or do anything else which is not law passed by congress, or rulings of the supreme court. All these "Czars" do is manage current law and policy.. The "Drug Czar" simply enforces drug laws which have been passed by congress and upheld by or not challenged in the supreme courts, and the budget is passed by congress. All the checks and balances are in place Now, you can question the focus of an administration in appointing staff to oversee policy (for example I think the drug war is a waste and thus think the appointment of an executive staff member to oversee it's execution is stupid), or those people they put in place to do the job. But acting like it is some how some sort of unconstitutional power grab is kind of ignorant. [/quote] Ok I see what you are saying, but if he appoints a Czar over a specific category, to deal with problems that may arise as far as laws and enforcement of those laws, isn't that just a way of the President usurping the responsibilities of Congress and the Supreme Court? And because these positions are appointed by Obama to his buddies, they are going to make decisions that are in favor of the President. How can that NOT be unconstitutional? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Lucid| Posted October 13, 2012 Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 [quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1350157114' post='1169597'] Ok I see what you are saying, but if he appoints a Czar over a specific category, to deal with problems that may arise as far as laws and enforcement of those laws, isn't that just a way of the President usurping the responsibilities of Congress and the Supreme Court? And because these positions are appointed by Obama to his buddies, they are going to make decisions that are in favor of the President. How can that NOT be unconstitutional? [/quote] The executive branch IS the branch of government that enforces, or "executes" the laws passed by congress and upheld by the courts. All executive staff are appointed by the president to aid in the administration of federal law, that is how the executive branch is [i]supposed[/i] to function... Could you give me an example of a "Czar" usurping the constitution or "law of the land" in some way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewdog Posted October 13, 2012 Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 [quote name='Lucid' timestamp='1350157897' post='1169601'] The executive branch IS the branch of government that enforces, or "executes" the laws passed by congress and upheld by the courts. All executive staff are appointed by the president to aid in the administration of federal law, that is how the executive branch is [i]supposed[/i] to function... Could you give me an example of a "Czar" usurping the constitution or "law of the land" in some way? [/quote] Right, the Executive branch executes the laws, but they aren't supposed to have free reign to interpret or change anything. It's not a matter of giving an example of an instance, because for one, if something happened more than likely most of the United States doesn't know it happened. Secondly, this policy of having Lone Rangers that have no supervision except Obama, is flawed. Like I said earlier, some of the Czars report to other people, some don't. So basically if you have these guys running around with a duty to cover certain aspects and problems in society, with no one to report to but Obama. Do you think with everything that is Obama's plate as President that these people REALLY report to him everything they plan on doing? If you do, your eyes are closed. The point I have been making, is that these guys are interpreting as they see fit, enforcing how they see it. How can you not see the flaw in that? Interpreting laws is the job of the Supreme Court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.