Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Joe g on October 19, 2009 at 7:58pm

Hey. I know Paul Volker was appointed by Carter, but was he not reappointed by Reagan. And was he not the conservative's darling back in the 80's because his policy was credited with taming inflation and high interest rates? And wasn't it his successor the dazed coke bottle bespectacled Greenspan the guy who kept interest rates artificially low there by encouraging dummies to invest in the stock market until that collapsed, and then kept on keeping interest rates artificially low so that more dummies could speculate in real estate adventured thinking prices would continue to rise at a 20% annual rate, just like the stock market?

And what is the big deal about gays getting married? Nobody's business but their own I think.

ditto with pro abortion.

And couldn't one make a great case for American Policy favoring jews over muslims becoming the centerpiece for muslim hatred of the US?

And wasn't it Isreal's old times like Gilda Maier et al who invented modern terrorism to wrest the Israeli state from the Palestinians out from under the British colonial nose?

And what would be so bad about disarming the US, seeing as how we spend a lot of money defending the likes of Western Europe, Korea and Japan, for starters? Don't t hey all have perfectly good teenagers they could send to slaughter to protect their growing interests hither and yon?


And doesn't about 60% of US foreign aid go to Israel and Egypt, with the rest split up between the "others"? Would that qualify as doing little for 3rd world countries?

While I do not know what nation is most responsible for global warming, I do know that the biggest culprit is overpopulation. The road to a greener future is fewer people.

Vasectomies all around guys.

Once upon a time when I was young, liberal meant being open to new untried ideas, a shedding of convention for convention's sake, a desire to be free of idiotic oppression,
Conservative meant no more than sticking to the old so called tried and true ways.

I was a liberal until I decided that liberals were most interested in making everyone else think their way. Then I was an ultra conservative, until I realized that conservatives want everyone to think their way. Now I just remind everyone that the trouble with liberty is that people will not behave the way you want them to.

And as for drug policy. WTF. How many people are in jail at what cost for smoking pot?
You can go to jail for 20 years because you have 4 or 5 ounces of pot in your dresser. If you steal two or three hundred million from your company or your country, you go to jail for 2 or 3 years, maybe. or maybe you just get a 5 million per year retirement and a 53 million dollar bailout.

Each year a pot head is in prison, would pay for a nice education for somebody who could do better, like a prison guard.

No guns does scare me. If nobody has guns, who will the police be afraid of?

And I know a lot more heterosexual women who hate men than lesbians. Lesbians do not need men, therefore can take them or leave them. Men ARE pigs, and frequently do not treat women very well, at least the hetero men don't.

Gay men usually have no big problem with women, although I myself prefer the company of testosterone, but that's just me. I think it's because men are easier than women, and do not ask for dinner and a movie before sex. Also men do not get pregnant, so you never have to worry about abortions or child support.

And what is so very wrong about abortion? If you don't want one, don't get one. Simple. As for what other people do, mind your own business.

As for being anti American. what the hell does that mean? Were the emancipationists anti American? Were the anti world war 2 participants anti American?

We used to think the anti Viet Nam war people were anti American, but I think they were more pro American? Is GM anti American for bringing down iconic American manufacturing prowess and humiliating our pride in an industry that was once without parallel?

As for doctors getting salaries, woa how unamerican is that? Bad enough we have lawyers, engineers, teachers, researchers, professors, technocrats, bankers, executives, managers, IT professionals, cosmologists, scientists, politicians, city managers, and nurses on salary, surely the world would explode if doctors were on salary and only had to worry about the practice of medicine, and not care about leases and rent and human resources, and malpractice insurance, and paying the light bill, and talking to pill pushers, and buying alcohol swabs. We would be in danger of getting better medicine.

ANd as for the evils of socialism, let us do get rid of social security, medicare, senior discounts, public schools, public highways, public sewers and water, public street ans sidewalks, fire departments, police, courthouses and jails, better these should all be paid for by user fees on a pay as you go basis. We could have easy passes for pedestrians and cars, 50 cents for every green light, 25 cents for every red one.

25 cents for every mile post you pass. pay the actual cost of maintaining a court house and police force with every offense.

Ok I am done now. well not quite. Lets build affordable tract housing on every golf course. Make every house over 5 thousand square feet a group home, and tax every salary/benefit package that is greater than 200 times the amount of the lowest paid employee at 75%.

Every estate valued at more than 10 million goes into a fund that gives each 21 year old a cash stake on their 21st birthday to do with as they please, either invest, or snort, your call.

Ok now I am done.

And what if there were an open border with Mexico? Why not another one with Canada?

Does anyone believe those countries would just empty out to move to the US? Even the lowest paying maid and grass cutting job markets fill up sooner or later, and then people just stay home and play hockey or soccer.

Too bad we didn't close the borders to the Irish, British, and Europeans when we had the chance. They sure came here and screwed things up good for Americans, er um I guess I mean Indians, um, aboriginals? 1st nationals? Native Americans?

But I understand, that with all these bad bad bad czars around, Rush Limbaugh will never get a football team of his own to play with.

Permalink Reply by Reggie on October 19, 2009 at 9:04pm

Rantastic!

Permalink Reply by Ashli Axtell on October 19, 2009 at 9:44pm

Were I you, I'd also try to make sure that your friend really understood what the title of "czar" actually meant in application here - that it's an advisory role which largely has no direct power over our legislative system and cannot directly affect the constitution.

Also, you may want to refer that individual to the White House's website. I did a search for "czar" there, and it seems they use some of the same efforts of logical reasoning to appeal to anyone who might search that site by pointing out critics of the unofficial "czars" who have supported those roles unquestioningly under previous administrations.

Permalink Reply by Reggie on October 19, 2009 at 11:16pm

He's the type that just seems to pass it along and doesn't go along with most of the extreme claims. So, when I challenge, he soft pedals on a lot.

Permalink Reply by Ashli Axtell on October 20, 2009 at 12:04am

I know so many people like that, unfortunately. I guess gossip wins out. After all, hyperbole is a billion times more interesting than reality, and who wants to think for themselves? Fact checking is so much work. It took an entire minute to go to whitehouse.gov and type "czar" in the search bar.

I have a friend who says this exact sentence a lot, "Well, I mean, Obama's just been flip-floppin' ever since he got into the White House." (When you read that aloud, add one extra syllable to been, since, flip and House - for hilarity.)

But, when I ask him for specific examples of the president's clearly horrendous, awful, flappity flip-floppage, he can't produce anything concrete. And it's not like I'm asking for actual numbers or anything, just a specific instance. He could even say, "Well, he said he was going to release those torture pictures, and then once he saw them he changed his mind."

Permalink Reply by Reggie on October 20, 2009 at 1:15pm

It took an entire minute to go to whitehouse.gov and type "czar" in the search bar.

Oh, but I think you know the argument they'll have against that type of fact checking. Conspiracy theory is ripe amongst this crowd. In some cases, it is easy to simply check a trusted source or two.

With that bill in Maine (I think it was Maine, I'm too pressed for time to fact check myself at the moment), that took a lot of time and effort due to the nature of the claims. They made extraordinary claims of real world outcomes of the legal wordings of this bill. Unless you read and comprehend the entire thing, they can always claim a bogeyman hides in those words.

Permalink Reply by Frink on October 21, 2009 at 11:15pm

Lists like these have the same function as right-wing talking heads and hate sites like World Net Daily and Conservapedia: they tell the ignorant masses who to hate, nothing more, often without providing any sources which support their claims or justification for why they're on the shit list.

This is nothing short of neo-McCarthyism. Orwell must be rolling in his grave.

Permalink Reply by Frink on October 22, 2009 at 1:50am

The original posted list, hence the un-branched, top-level reply.

Permalink Reply by Reggie on October 23, 2009 at 7:00pm

Nicely done. I've been slacking.

Permalink Reply by Reggie on February 12, 2010 at 8:45pm

Yeah, the way it gets reported these days, you'd think it was something brand new.

Permalink Reply by Larche Osborne on February 13, 2010 at 3:15pm

Czars are simply an unofficial titled applied to a sub-cabinet appointee in the executive branch. Such appointees have existed since George Washington, but the term "czar" was first used to describe an appointee of Wilson -- the Czar of Industry, so-titled by the press. There is nothing new about such appointees beyond the more frequent use of the title "czar). In fact, the real title of these appointees don't even include the word "czar."

Permalink Reply by Larche Osborne on February 13, 2010 at 4:24pm

The political motivation and its intended audience us shown by the information following each title (and note that I have already explained that "czar" is not an offical government title. Consider the following:

"Afghanistan Czar: Richard Holbrooke- Ultra liberal anti-gun former Gov.of New Mexico. Pro Abortion and legal drug use" -- what does his approving of gun-control, being liberal, pro-choice (which not the same thing as pro-abortion), and his sharing -- at least in part -- the opinions of conservative icon William F. Buckley have to do with his appointment to Afghanistan?

Look at some of the charges leveled against some of the other so-called czars: "Homosexual," "Gay Rights activist," "Believes in Gay Marriage," "ACORN board member," "Ultra Liberal friend of Hilary Clinton," "Served as Border Czar under Janet Reno," "Auto Union worker," "Leftist," Puerto Rican, Native of Democratic Republic of Congo," "Council of foreign relations," "Left wing radical," Sierra Club," "Chief of Staff to TED KENNEDY," "married to a reporter for The New York Times," "Political Black activist," or "born in New Delhi, India." Notice the false charges tossed in: "Communist" used liberally, references to race or nation of origin are common, John Holdren has "No Science training," Joshua DuBois has a degree in "Black Nationalism," David J. Hayes Sr. has "No training or experience in water management" -- Did anyone even research this claim, or do the conservatives who make these claims merely make them up, hoping we would all blindly accept them. The claim that Holbrooke was the former Governor of New Mexico shows how poorly researched this piece is.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page