Post your favorite Obama Czar quotes here!

[Bob]

When Obama was running for president he said we should judge him by those he surrounds himself with, good idea. I know most Socialists (or worse) wont care, but as more democrats and Americans come to understand that Obama continues to surround himself with those that despise American traditions, and are WILLING to go as far as they need to "force us" into some Orwellian experience, maybe we should start paying attention to what Obama does, and who he is appointing to "advise" him. This is no longer about left and right this has become a battle against tyranny. For those who still see things in right and left terms, understand that this fight will only require very consistant use of telling the truth to win -- no paid thugs, or violence required.

All direct quotes from Obama Science Czar John Holdren.

"Individual rights must be balanced against the power of the government to control human reproduction."

"Some people, respected legislators, judges and lawyers included, have viewed the right to have children as a fundamental and inalienable right, yet neither the Declaration of Independence, nor the Constitution mentions a right to reproduce."

"In the United States individuals have a constitutional right to privacy, at least to the extent that a woman has a right to choose not to have children. But that right's not unlimited. Where the society has a compelling subordinating interest in regulating population size, the right of the individual may be curtailed."

"The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children"

[epicSocialism4tw]

All direct quotes from Obama Science Czar John Holdren.

"Individual rights must be balanced against the power of the government to control human reproduction."

"Some people, respected legislators, judges and lawyers included, have viewed the right to have children as a fundamental and inalienable right, yet neither the Declaration of Independence, nor the Constitution mentions a right to reproduce."

"In the United States individuals have a constitutional right to privacy, at least to the extent that a woman has a right to choose not to have children. But that right's not unlimited. Where the society has a compelling subordinating interest in regulating population size, the right of the individual may be curtailed."

"The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children"

Absolutely disgusting.

Homeskillet Holdren is one of those idiots who is overly concerned with population control. The risk of overpopulation is not something that scientists agree upon. I just talked to a friend who is university geneticist (just got a huge NSF grant for his research), and he doesnt think that overpopulation is an issue at all, and certainly is not an issue in any first-world nation in the world.

The point is, that Obama has picked his Czars (appropriate terminology) to suit his ideological goals. He picks guys that believe in the same things he believes in, science or no science.

[AbileneBroncoFan]

If you know anything about biology, then you know that every ecosystem has a maximum carrying capacity. To say that we can support an infinite number of people is as foolish as saying we should legislate reproduction. In fact, if yall did your homework, you would realize that most advanced countries (especially in Europe) have minimal, if any, population growth because the number of annual births is approximately equal to the number of deaths. It's the less developed countries of Africa, Asia, and the Middle East where population numbers are rapidly growing.

Now, in terms of what we should do about it is simple. We have the technology to increase the efficiency of food production and distribution, and as long as we are continuing to increase this efficiency, we will be fine. However, this represents another critical point for changing to renewable energy because as population inevitably increases worldwide, demand for resources increases, thus we will run out of things such as oil and lumber more quickly. Controlling population is not nearly as beneficial nor as practical as improving our energy/food production methods.

That being said, no matter how advanced we become, at some point in time, be it 10, 50, 100, or 200 years, we will reach the world's carrying capacity for human beings. However, nature is a system that works much better than any government (or in a conservative's opinion lack thereof), and it will solve this problem in a rather cruel way: famine or disease. It's happened throughout history (Black Death, Spanish Flu) and it is only a matter of time before another epidemic occurs. The best thing we can do is fund medical research and be as prepared as we can possibly be when it happens.

To suggest that the Obama administration is going to push for reproduction limitations is absurd and based in about as much fact as those who believe that the Bush administration let 9/11 happen to allow for a military agenda in the Middle East.

[Garcia Bronco]

Population grows exponentially. One day we will have to control it, period. Only once in recorded history has population actually dipped...and that was during the black plague.

But back to these czars. They have no legal standing and their title alone is probably unconstitutional and illegal.

[TexanBob]

The white populations in both North America and Europe are dwindling (I'm talking about raw totals, not percentages). Many wait longer to start families and choose to have smaller families. If it were not for immigrants and minorities, both would have shrinking populations.

The problem with most "population control" efforts is that certain elites decide which populations deserve to be thinned and which ones can continue to reproduce without restrictions. We all know how that turns out.

[Rohirrim]

I want to see more of this guy. Where are the links?

[footstepsfrom#27]

Where are the links?
Exactly

[Rigs11]

Too funny. Repubs all upset because he mentions that people could be limited to how many kids they have, and yet as soon as you ask them to provide healthcare for these kids they run away screaming socialism:rofl:

[cutthemdown]

Too funny. Repubs all upset because he mentions that people could be limited to how many kids they have, and yet as soon as you ask them to provide healthcare for these kids they run away screaming socialism:rofl:

Let's face it though it's not white people having too many kids. Illegals come here and have 5-6-7 kids. The more legal citizens the better right.

I think even black babies are way down as black women decide more and more to not let men knock them up and instead go to school.

If we need a kid limit I have no problem with that. I'm not religious though. You will never get that past the Catholics or the protestants either.

I'd say no one needs more then 3 kids. After that you have to pay 25 thousand to have a kid.

[cutthemdown]

Then if you have a kid over the limit but no cash, we send that kid to madonna or angelina jolie.

[Dukes]

Then if you have a kid over the limit but no cash, we send that kid to madonna or angelina jolie.

I wouldn't wish that kind of torture to anyone

[epicSocialism4tw]

Population grows exponentially. One day we will have to control it, period. Only once in recorded history has population actually dipped...and that was during the black plague.

But back to these czars. They have no legal standing and their title alone is probably unconstitutional and illegal.

Population grows exponentially in third world nations, not in first world nations.

Those nations do not have the resources to support exponential growth. The US would only have to worry about population control if the infrastructure degraded and a mass influx of uneducated immigrants flooded the country.

[epicSocialism4tw]

That being said, no matter how advanced we become, at some point in time, be it 10, 50, 100, or 200 years, we will reach the world's carrying capacity for human beings. However, nature is a system that works much better than any government (or in a conservative's opinion lack thereof), and it will solve this problem in a rather cruel way: famine or disease. It's happened throughout history (Black Death, Spanish Flu) and it is only a matter of time before another epidemic occurs. The best thing we can do is fund medical research and be as prepared as we can possibly be when it happens.

The myth of exceeding carrying capacity is based on information that is over 100 years old!

[AbileneBroncoFan]

The myth of exceeding carrying capacity is based on information that is over 100 years old!

Yes, because the earth can support 100 billion human beings...

[Bob]

Absolutely disgusting.

Homeskillet Holdren is one of those idiots who is overly concerned with population control. The risk of overpopulation is not something that scientists agree upon. I just talked to a friend who is university geneticist (just got a huge NSF grant for his research), and he doesnt think that overpopulation is an issue at all, and certainly is not an issue in any first-world nation in the world.

The point is, that Obama has picked his Czars (appropriate terminology) to suit his ideological goals. He picks guys that believe in the same things he believes in, science or no science.

I think it is equally discusting that mainstream news, although true ignores all of these types of things. I know that I am expecting too much from traditional news outlets, but without truth telling -- even hard truths government can continue to take power away from the masses and acn set up a structure to do so (take Liberties) quickly if needed for political gain before most folks are even aware that this government should be a threat to more that just the far right, but 90% of us, who are not part of the inner circle.

[Rohirrim]

I think it is equally discusting that mainstream news, although true ignores all of these types of things. I know that I am expecting too much from traditional news outlets, but without truth telling -- even hard truths government can continue to take power away from the masses and acn set up a structure to do so (take Liberties) quickly if needed for political gain before most folks are even aware that this government should be a threat to more that just the far right, but 90% of us, who are not part of the inner circle.

You are really starting to sound more and more like your crack-pot hero, Glenn Beck. Congratulations! :thumbsup:

[Bob]

If you know anything about biology, then you know that every ecosystem has a maximum carrying capacity. To say that we can support an infinite number of people is as foolish as saying we should legislate reproduction. In fact, if yall did your homework, you would realize that most advanced countries (especially in Europe) have minimal, if any, population growth because the number of annual births is approximately equal to the number of deaths. It's the less developed countries of Africa, Asia, and the Middle East where population numbers are rapidly growing.

Now, in terms of what we should do about it is simple. We have the technology to increase the efficiency of food production and distribution, and as long as we are continuing to increase this efficiency, we will be fine. However, this represents another critical point for changing to renewable energy because as population inevitably increases worldwide, demand for resources increases, thus we will run out of things such as oil and lumber more quickly. Controlling population is not nearly as beneficial nor as practical as improving our energy/food production methods.

That being said, no matter how advanced we become, at some point in time, be it 10, 50, 100, or 200 years, we will reach the world's carrying capacity for human beings. However, nature is a system that works much better than any government (or in a conservative's opinion lack thereof), and it will solve this problem in a rather cruel way: famine or disease. It's happened throughout history (Black Death, Spanish Flu) and it is only a matter of time before another epidemic occurs. The best thing we can do is fund medical research and be as prepared as we can possibly be when it happens.

To suggest that the Obama administration is going to push for reproduction limitations is absurd and based in about as much fact as those who believe that the Bush administration let 9/11 happen to allow for a military agenda in the Middle East.

Ok then, it is a radical notion then isnt it? But my question is more why the hell would the pres surround himself with "advisors" that hold moronic and I dare say Fascist views? And he's not teh only Czar hes appointed who have farrrrr leftist views -- hell I dont think that left even defines it -- they are left sure, but they are way up the political scale as well,meaning they seem ok with exserting power to affect change -- if given the chance to do so.

I guy who holds these views shouldnt be a dog catcher -- unless of course you have a dog over-population problem in your town.

[Bob]

[QUOTE=AbileneBroncoFan;2525893]If you know anything about biology, then you know that every ecosystem has a maximum carrying capacity. To say that we can support an infinite number of people is as foolish as saying we should legislate reproduction. In fact, if yall did your homework, you would realize that most advanced countries (especially in Europe) have minimal, if any, population growth because the number of annual births is approximately equal to the number of deaths. It's the less developed countries of Africa, Asia, and the Middle East where population numbers are rapidly growing.

Actually I also knew this

The thing that also appears to be true when looking at European birth rates (average is 1.38) is that they shoudl be at least trying to get folks to have children at 2.0 so they can "replace" those that are dying off so the elderly can be supported in their systems, that are going off an economic cliff faster than us.) The Muslims for better or worse in those same countries are still having children at 3.4 if memory serves (I know it is over 3.0 for each couple.)

Ok then, it is a radical notion then isnt it? -- the idea that Obama would even consider such notions of forced sterization etc -- But my question is more why the hell would the pres surround himself with "advisors" that hold these moronic and I dare say Fascist views? And he's not teh only Czar hes appointed who have farrrrr leftist views -- hell I dont think that left even defines it -- they are left sure, but they are way up the political scale as well,meaning they seem ok with exserting power to affect change -- if given the chance to do so.

I guy who holds these views shouldnt be appointed as a dog catcher -- unless of course you have a dog over-population problem in your town.

[Bob]

You are really starting to sound more and more like your crack-pot hero, Glenn Beck. Congratulations! :thumbsup:

Then tell me where I am wrong on the facts? Obama has this guy advising him, and this advisor does have some wicked ideas ... you woundnt have wanted a guy like this appointed under Bush would you have? I woudl have not -- and two short years ago, the media woudl have reported the news I am sharing...

Do his words matter to you? Do they matter to any of the left?

[Bob]

Yes, because the earth can support 100 billion human beings...

I think the earth will self-correct if it gets to some very high number, no need for government to correct it for us -- Like Hitler, and Stalin did.

When nations like ours are prosperous, they have less children -- our population rates are 2.1 per couple -- and the only reason it is not a negitive number is because of immigration, as Catholics from Mexico and south of the boarder statisticly have more kids -- not a bad thing, just the truth.

[AbileneBroncoFan]

I think the earth will self-correct if it gets to some very high number, no need for government to correct it for us -- Like Hitler, and Stalin did.

When nations like ours are prosperous, they have less children -- our population rates are 2.1 per couple -- and the only reason it is not a negitive number is because of immigration, as Catholics from Mexico and south of the boarder statisticly have more kids -- not a bad thing, just the truth.

I'm pretty sure that is what I said in my first post. And yes, whatever brilliant pope came up with the idea that birth control is bad is doing a lot of people a disservice, especially in places in Africa where HIV is prevalent. But that's another topic for another time.

[Rohirrim]

Then tell me where I am wrong on the facts? Obama has this guy advising him, and this advisor does have some wicked ideas ... you woundnt have wanted a guy like this appointed under Bush would you have? I woudl have not -- and two short years ago, the media woudl have reported the news I am sharing...

Do his words matter to you? Do they matter to any of the left?

No, unless they are substantiated. Where's the links?

[AbileneBroncoFan]

No, unless they are substantiated. Where's the links?

There are none. Whenever the far right can't win an argument, they make **** up.

"Saddam has WMDs."
"If we leave now, they'll follow us home."
"Mission accomplished."
"Barack Obama is not a US citizen."
"John Kerry's purple heart is not legitimate."
"Sarah Palin is fully qualified for the job of VP."
"Rush Limbaugh is not a dumbass bigot."

Stuff like that.

[Bob]

No, unless they are substantiated. Where's the links?

The Washington Examiner -- The book qouted was older -- 1977, but the ideas he spoke about are dangrous ones -- and were used by the Eugencis movement. No, I dont think Obama is going to spike the water supply for folks living in Utah -- but it goes back to why Obama woudl appoint this guy in the first place. included below are several additional quotes from this appointment -- the admin is not denying he spoke teh words -- they talk about context -- ok, give me some context, of when it is "ok" for the government to act in these ways?:

Obama's science czar suggested compulsory abortion, sterilization
By: David Freddoso
Commentary Staff Writer
07/14/09 4:55 PM EDT
Internet reports are now circulating that Obama's Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, John Holdren, penned a 1977 book that approved of and recommended compulsory sterilization and even abortion in some cases, as part of a government population control regime.

Given the general unreliability of Internet quotations, I wanted to go straight to this now-rare text and make sure the reports were both accurate and kept Holdren's writings in context. Generally speaking, they are, and they do.

The Holdren book, titled Ecoscience and co-authored with Malthus enthusiasts Paul and Anne Ehrlich, weighs in at more than 1,000 pages. Of greatest importance to its discussion of how to limit the human population is its disregard for any ethical considerations.

Holdren (with the Ehrlichs) notes the existence of “moral objections to some proposals...especially to any kind of compulsion.” But his approach is completely amoral. He implies that compulsory population control is less preferable, because of some people's objections, but he argues repeatedly that it is sometimes necessary, and necessity trumps all ethical objections.

He writes:

Several coercive proposals deserve discussion, mainly because some countries may ultimately have to resort to them unless current trends in birth rates are rapidly reversed by other means. Some involuntary measures could be less repressive or discriminatory, in fact, than some of the socioeconomic measures suggested.

Holdren refers approvingly, for example, to Indira Gandhi's government for its then-recent attempt at a compulsory sterilization program:

India in the mid-1970s not only entertained the idea of compulsory sterilization, but moved toward implementing it...This decision was greeted with dismay abroad, but Indira Gandhi's government felt it had little other choice. There is too little time left to experiment further with educational programs and hope that social change will generate a spontaneous fertility decline, and most of the Indian population is too poor for direct economic pressures (especially penalties) to be effective.

When necessary, then, compulsory sterilization is justified. This attitude suffuses the following passage, in which the possibility of putting a “sterilant” into a population's drinking water is seriously discussed. Holdren and his co-authors do not recommend this particular method, but their objections to it are merely practical and health-related, not moral or stemming from any concern for human freedom:

Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the oposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock...Again, there is no sign of such an agent on the horizon. And the risk of serious, unforeseen side effects would, in our opinion, militate against the use of any such agent, even though this plan has the advantage of avoiding the need for socioeconomic pressures that might tend to discriminate against particular groups or penalize children.

Even though they do not recommend it, note that Holdren and his co-authors treat this as a serious policy proposal with serious drawbacks -- not as an insane idea unworthy of consideration.

They look with more favor on this “milder” form of coercive sterilization:

Of course, a government might require only implantation of the contraceptive capsule, leaving its removal to the individual's discretion but requiring reimplantation after childbirth. Since having a child would require positive action (removal of the capsule), many more births would be prevented than in the reverse situation.

Holdren and his co-authors also tackle the problem of illegitimacy, recognizing that it could be one consequence of a society which, in its effort to limit births, downgrades the value of intact nuclear families and encourages lifelong bachelorhood:

[R]esponsible parenthood ought to be encouraged and illegitimate childbearing could be strongly discouraged. One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption -- especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone...It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.

Holdren's suggestion here is presented perfectly in context. It stands alone in the text without any accompanying reservations.

President Obama has spoken repeatedly in favor of putting science before ideology. The real debate, however, has never been about whether ethics are needed in science, but rather over whose ethics should determine where science will or will not go.

Nowhere has Obama suggested that science should be completely ethics-free. But Holdren is his Science Czar all the same.

[AbileneBroncoFan]

The Washington Examiner -- The book qouted was older -- 1977, but the ideas he spoke about are dangrous ones -- and were used by the Eugencis movement. No, I dont think Obama is going to spike the water supply for folks living in Utah -- but it goes back to why Obama woudl appoint this guy in the first place. included below are several additional quotes from this appointment -- the admin is not denying he spoke teh words -- they talk about context -- ok, give me some context, of when it is "ok" for the government to act in these ways?:

Obama's science czar suggested compulsory abortion, sterilization
By: David Freddoso
Commentary Staff Writer
07/14/09 4:55 PM EDT
Internet reports are now circulating that Obama's Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, John Holdren, penned a 1977 book that approved of and recommended compulsory sterilization and even abortion in some cases, as part of a government population control regime.

Given the general unreliability of Internet quotations, I wanted to go straight to this now-rare text and make sure the reports were both accurate and kept Holdren's writings in context. Generally speaking, they are, and they do.

The Holdren book, titled Ecoscience and co-authored with Malthus enthusiasts Paul and Anne Ehrlich, weighs in at more than 1,000 pages. Of greatest importance to its discussion of how to limit the human population is its disregard for any ethical considerations.

Holdren (with the Ehrlichs) notes the existence of “moral objections to some proposals...especially to any kind of compulsion.” But his approach is completely amoral. He implies that compulsory population control is less preferable, because of some people's objections, but he argues repeatedly that it is sometimes necessary, and necessity trumps all ethical objections.

He writes:

Several coercive proposals deserve discussion, mainly because some countries may ultimately have to resort to them unless current trends in birth rates are rapidly reversed by other means. Some involuntary measures could be less repressive or discriminatory, in fact, than some of the socioeconomic measures suggested.

Holdren refers approvingly, for example, to Indira Gandhi's government for its then-recent attempt at a compulsory sterilization program:

India in the mid-1970s not only entertained the idea of compulsory sterilization, but moved toward implementing it...This decision was greeted with dismay abroad, but Indira Gandhi's government felt it had little other choice. There is too little time left to experiment further with educational programs and hope that social change will generate a spontaneous fertility decline, and most of the Indian population is too poor for direct economic pressures (especially penalties) to be effective.

When necessary, then, compulsory sterilization is justified. This attitude suffuses the following passage, in which the possibility of putting a “sterilant” into a population's drinking water is seriously discussed. Holdren and his co-authors do not recommend this particular method, but their objections to it are merely practical and health-related, not moral or stemming from any concern for human freedom:

Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the oposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock...Again, there is no sign of such an agent on the horizon. And the risk of serious, unforeseen side effects would, in our opinion, militate against the use of any such agent, even though this plan has the advantage of avoiding the need for socioeconomic pressures that might tend to discriminate against particular groups or penalize children.

Even though they do not recommend it, note that Holdren and his co-authors treat this as a serious policy proposal with serious drawbacks -- not as an insane idea unworthy of consideration.

They look with more favor on this “milder” form of coercive sterilization:

Of course, a government might require only implantation of the contraceptive capsule, leaving its removal to the individual's discretion but requiring reimplantation after childbirth. Since having a child would require positive action (removal of the capsule), many more births would be prevented than in the reverse situation.

Holdren and his co-authors also tackle the problem of illegitimacy, recognizing that it could be one consequence of a society which, in its effort to limit births, downgrades the value of intact nuclear families and encourages lifelong bachelorhood:

[R]esponsible parenthood ought to be encouraged and illegitimate childbearing could be strongly discouraged. One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption -- especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone...It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.

Holdren's suggestion here is presented perfectly in context. It stands alone in the text without any accompanying reservations.

President Obama has spoken repeatedly in favor of putting science before ideology. The real debate, however, has never been about whether ethics are needed in science, but rather over whose ethics should determine where science will or will not go.

Nowhere has Obama suggested that science should be completely ethics-free. But Holdren is his Science Czar all the same.

So all of this is over something written over 30 years ago about what could one day become an issue if the technology (which isn't in development in any way, shape, or form) is developed and then the government decides to use it for a far-fetched, radical policy in an effort to control population growth while destroying the good ol, all-american nuclear family? Really? That is the best attack on the administration you guys can come up with? Next I suppose someone will be under fire because of some radical view they have about what the implications of developing faster than light travel would be. Should we not be more concerned with legitimate issues, such as Obama's lack of a birth certificate and Bush's prior knowledge of 9/11?

Making this a big talking point is doing a disservice to both sides of the isle. I guarantee there are more legitimate problems within the administration that need to be addressed than this, and stuff like this is why no one takes Republicans seriously anymore.

[Rohirrim]

This guy is writing about a Malthusian hypothetical: If the population gets to a certain point, what would we be forced to do? Let's try not to let it get to that point. Shall we?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

<center> http://www.bartcop.com/obama-mind.jpg
</center>

[barryr]

The "overpopulation" of the world is happening in the Third World countries if anywhere. Not to mention the muslim world too. There's no question if Bush was appointing now reaching around 40 czars as Obama has who do exactly what and answer to who knows, they'd be screaming "secrecy" and coming up with any and all conspiracy theories. But Obama, who proclaimed "transparency" as the heart of his presidency, does it and it's justified without any investigation into who these people are and what they are going to do. Again, liberals only mind when rights are taken away by democrats. Otherwise, they dust off their copy of the Constitution and pretend to care.

[Bob]

The "overpopulation" of the world is happening in the Third World countries if anywhere. Not to mention the muslim world too. There's no question if Bush was appointing now reaching around 40 czars as Obama has who do exactly what and answer to who knows, they'd be screaming "secrecy" and coming up with any and all conspiracy theories. But Obama, who proclaimed "transparency" as the heart of his presidency, does it and it's justified without any investigation into who these people are and what they are going to do. Again, liberals only mind when rights are taken away by democrats. Otherwise, they dust off their copy of the Constitution and pretend to care.

Hopefully if Bush had appointed that many Czars and was giving more power to them we would join in ...but your point is well taken -- double standards all around indicating: party first + principles second = Americans getting what they deserve from government.

[peacepipe]

Sam L.
Alexandria, MN 08/08/2009 10:50 PM
Come on people, every president has had their own 'czars". Do your research! See below, copied from Yahoo of June, 2009. Donald E. Powell. Oh, sorry that was Bush’s Czar to Rebuild Gulf Coast; see http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/01/us/01p… John P. Walters. Oops, that was one of Bush's Drug Czars; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_P._Wal… Karen Hughes. No, that was Bush's Public Diplomacy Czar; see http://diplomacy.foreignpolicyblogs.com/… Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute. Bush's 'War Czar' -- see http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=317664… Then there's Bush's 'Copyright Czar' -- see http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,233… And Bush's Spy Czar -- see http://articles.latimes.com/2004/sep/09/… And Bush's Heath Czar -- see http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/wash… And Bush's Privacy Czar -- see http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/art… And Bush's Corruption Czar -- see remarks of White House spokesman Scott Stanzel http://www.californiachronicle.com/artic… Randall Tobias. Bush's AIDS Czar. See http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/… Dr. Mark Dybul. Bush's other AIDS Czar. See http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctpoli… Richard Stickler. Bush's Mine Safety Czar -- see http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/edit… John Negroponte. Bush's Intelligence Czar -- see http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnfl… Otto Reich. Bush's Latin America czar -- see http://thegully.com/essays/US/politics/0… Carlton Turner. Oops, that was Reagan's Drug Czar -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_Czar David Stockman. Oh no, that was Reagan's Budget Czar -- see http://www.thedeal.com/dealscape/2009/01… and http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/25/busine… In 1992 during the Bush 41 administration, the right wing Heritage Foundation called for a "NAFTA Czar" -- http://www.heritage.org/Research/tradean… Glen Beck isn't very good at counting czars. He missed at least half of Reagan's czars and only found 4 Bush 43 czars. See http://glennbeck.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/… Hope this helps you understand about government 'Czars.' Oh but did you really want to understand, or did you want ammunition instead of context

http://www.jamestownsun.com/event/commentViolation/id/91174/created/2009-08-08%2022:50:13.0/type/Article/user_id/d4bc037b34e19086a63d9b395e87c98a/publisher_Id/10/

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Sam L.
Alexandria, MN 08/08/2009 10:50 PM
Come on people, every president has had their own 'czars". Do your research! See below, copied from Yahoo of June, 2009. Donald E. Powell. Oh, sorry that was Bush’s Czar to Rebuild Gulf Coast; see http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/01/us/01p… John P. Walters. Oops, that was one of Bush's Drug Czars; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_P._Wal… Karen Hughes. No, that was Bush's Public Diplomacy Czar; see http://diplomacy.foreignpolicyblogs.com/… Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute. Bush's 'War Czar' -- see http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=317664… Then there's Bush's 'Copyright Czar' -- see http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,233… And Bush's Spy Czar -- see http://articles.latimes.com/2004/sep/09/… And Bush's Heath Czar -- see http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/wash… And Bush's Privacy Czar -- see http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/art… And Bush's Corruption Czar -- see remarks of White House spokesman Scott Stanzel http://www.californiachronicle.com/artic… Randall Tobias. Bush's AIDS Czar. See http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/… Dr. Mark Dybul. Bush's other AIDS Czar. See http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctpoli… Richard Stickler. Bush's Mine Safety Czar -- see http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/edit… John Negroponte. Bush's Intelligence Czar -- see http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnfl… Otto Reich. Bush's Latin America czar -- see http://thegully.com/essays/US/politics/0… Carlton Turner. Oops, that was Reagan's Drug Czar -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_Czar David Stockman. Oh no, that was Reagan's Budget Czar -- see http://www.thedeal.com/dealscape/2009/01… and http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/25/busine… In 1992 during the Bush 41 administration, the right wing Heritage Foundation called for a "NAFTA Czar" -- http://www.heritage.org/Research/tradean… Glen Beck isn't very good at counting czars. He missed at least half of Reagan's czars and only found 4 Bush 43 czars. See http://glennbeck.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/… Hope this helps you understand about government 'Czars.' Oh but did you really want to understand, or did you want ammunition instead of context

http://www.jamestownsun.com/event/commentViolation/id/91174/created/2009-08-08%2022:50:13.0/type/Article/user_id/d4bc037b34e19086a63d9b395e87c98a/publisher_Id/10/

Funny how bob never started threads or expressed any concern about any of those. ;)

[El Guapo]

Any talk yet on how the white house is utilizing the National Endowment for the Arts? Government enlisting the artists it funds through tax dollars to help create propaganda. Not cool at all.

[DBruleU]

Here's a good one. This administration is full of winners.

Obama's Green Jobs Czar Van Jones: Republicans Are "A**holes"

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/09/02/obamas_green_jobs_czar_van_jones_republicans_are_a holes.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yt66eWnjoTo

He made the remark during an energy lecture in Berkeley, Calif., after a woman in the audience asked him why President Obama and congressional Democrats were having trouble moving legislation -- even though Republicans, with a smaller majority, didn't have as much trouble earlier in the Bush administration.

"Well, the answer to that is, they're a-holes," Jones said, to uproarious laughter. "That's a technical, political science term."

[Rohirrim]

Here's a good one. This administration is full of winners.

Obama's Green Jobs Czar Van Jones: Republicans Are "A**holes"

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/09/02/obamas_green_jobs_czar_van_jones_republicans_are_a holes.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yt66eWnjoTo

He made the remark during an energy lecture in Berkeley, Calif., after a woman in the audience asked him why President Obama and congressional Democrats were having trouble moving legislation -- even though Republicans, with a smaller majority, didn't have as much trouble earlier in the Bush administration.

"Well, the answer to that is, they're a-holes," Jones said, to uproarious laughter. "That's a technical, political science term."

He gets the "bye" on that one for telling the truth. ;D

[Bob]

Sam L.
Alexandria, MN 08/08/2009 10:50 PM
Come on people, every president has had their own 'czars". Do your research! See below, copied from Yahoo of June, 2009. Donald E. Powell. Oh, sorry that was Bush’s Czar to Rebuild Gulf Coast; see http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/01/us/01p… John P. Walters. Oops, that was one of Bush's Drug Czars; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_P._Wal… Karen Hughes. No, that was Bush's Public Diplomacy Czar; see http://diplomacy.foreignpolicyblogs.com/… Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute. Bush's 'War Czar' -- see http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=317664… Then there's Bush's 'Copyright Czar' -- see http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,233… And Bush's Spy Czar -- see http://articles.latimes.com/2004/sep/09/… And Bush's Heath Czar -- see http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/wash… And Bush's Privacy Czar -- see http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/art… And Bush's Corruption Czar -- see remarks of White House spokesman Scott Stanzel http://www.californiachronicle.com/artic… Randall Tobias. Bush's AIDS Czar. See http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/… Dr. Mark Dybul. Bush's other AIDS Czar. See http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctpoli… Richard Stickler. Bush's Mine Safety Czar -- see http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/edit… John Negroponte. Bush's Intelligence Czar -- see http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnfl… Otto Reich. Bush's Latin America czar -- see http://thegully.com/essays/US/politics/0… Carlton Turner. Oops, that was Reagan's Drug Czar -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_Czar David Stockman. Oh no, that was Reagan's Budget Czar -- see http://www.thedeal.com/dealscape/2009/01… and http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/25/busine… In 1992 during the Bush 41 administration, the right wing Heritage Foundation called for a "NAFTA Czar" -- http://www.heritage.org/Research/tradean… Glen Beck isn't very good at counting czars. He missed at least half of Reagan's czars and only found 4 Bush 43 czars. See http://glennbeck.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/… Hope this helps you understand about government 'Czars.' Oh but did you really want to understand, or did you want ammunition instead of context

http://www.jamestownsun.com/event/commentViolation/id/91174/created/2009-08-08%2022:50:13.0/type/Article/user_id/d4bc037b34e19086a63d9b395e87c98a/publisher_Id/10/

I knew this already ..Nixon was the first I believe with a drug Czar, but the number is appointed Czars is increasing, the power given appears to be increasing and the # Communists and radicals he has appointed are at an all time high. When Czars who talk about Chavez in glowing terms are appointed, it shows me, there is no attempt to be like past Dems -- they are taking folks to another place. I think these guys -- represent the 7% of Americans in a recent Rasmussen survey that they:
1. Trust the judgement of political leaders more than the American Public
2. Reject the notion that government is a special-interest group primarily watching out for itself
3. Believe that big business and big government work togther for the interests of investors and consumers.

While 66% of Americans "have no trust" or "not very much trust in the government's ability to manage it's finances reasonably."

have you listened to what these Czars have said -- and still support them? If, so you might be part of the naive and dangerous 7%.

[Bob]

He gets the "bye" on that one for telling the truth. ;D

name calling does bother folks that much -- at least not me, but he sure doesnt act like someone who thinks he has limited power... does he?

[footstepsfrom#27]

Any talk yet on how the white house is utilizing the National Endowment for the Arts? Government enlisting the artists it funds through tax dollars to help create propaganda. Not cool at all.
Is there any end to this lunacy? Seriously...use your head please.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Here's a good one. This administration is full of winners.

Obama's Green Jobs Czar Van Jones: Republicans Are "A**holes"

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/09/02/obamas_green_jobs_czar_van_jones_republicans_are_a holes.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yt66eWnjoTo

He made the remark during an energy lecture in Berkeley, Calif., after a woman in the audience asked him why President Obama and congressional Democrats were having trouble moving legislation -- even though Republicans, with a smaller majority, didn't have as much trouble earlier in the Bush administration.

"Well, the answer to that is, they're a-holes," Jones said, to uproarious laughter. "That's a technical, political science term."

Typical lefty class.

[peacepipe]

I knew this already ..Nixon was the first I believe with a drug Czar, but the number is appointed Czars is increasing, the power given appears to be increasing and the # Communists and radicals he has appointed are at an all time high. When Czars who talk about Chavez in glowing terms are appointed, it shows me, there is no attempt to be like past Dems -- they are taking folks to another place. I think these guys -- represent the 7% of Americans in a recent Rasmussen survey that they:
1. Trust the judgement of political leaders more than the American Public
2. Reject the notion that government is a special-interest group primarily watching out for itself
3. Believe that big business and big government work togther for the interests of investors and consumers.

While 66% of Americans "have no trust" or "not very much trust in the government's ability to manage it's finances reasonably."

have you listened to what these Czars have said -- and still support them? If, so you might be part of the naive and dangerous 7%.

energy czar,reagon appointed a drug czar.

[Bob]

energy czar,reagon appointed a drug czar.

So Nixon was the first to appoint a Czar over energy? And Reagan appointed a drug Czar? -- is that what you are saying?

[peacepipe]

William E. Simon, was the energy czar nixon appointed.

[Bob]

William E. Simon, was the energy czar nixon appointed.

Thanks .. I knew Nixon started this, Tricky Dick.

[rastaman]

So Bob, what do you hope to accomplish in this thread?

[Rohirrim]

name calling does bother folks that much -- at least not me, but he sure doesnt act like someone who thinks he has limited power... does he?

No doubt he'll use his power as the Green Energy Czar to take over America. Read comic books much?

[Bob]

No doubt he'll use his power as the Green Energy Czar to take over America. Read comic books much?

Read history much?

[Bob]

So Bob, what do you hope to accomplish in this thread?

To have people look at the words of these radicals, and to watch them speak, as one does so, they can decide if they represent our best interests...

I still have faith that most Americans are not ok, with those who are Communists (or recently "converted") having the president's ear, and power. I am surprised that these fringe folks are being appointed, and as normal Dems read their words, and are honest with themselves, and not look at it in right and left terms, I think many will start to re-think, what kind of America they want their kids to inherit.

[Bronx33]

Look for van jones to step aside soon his past and remarks are not going to pass the test.

[Bronx33]

So Bob, what do you hope to accomplish in this thread?


Hes hoping you might take the time to see what pedigree of people obama wants to bend his ear sadly you havent looked.

[Rohirrim]

Read history much?

Instead of focusing on this one guy, why don't you give a small synopsis of all the people that Obama has offering him advice. You pull one little voice out of the hundreds and then presume that this one has the most influence? Really? Hell, he doesn't even have a key position. Not even cabinet level. So he has more influence than Hillary? Than David Axelrod? Than Rahm? Than Robert Gates? Than Tom Vilsack? Really?

Here's a list of Obama's key advisors: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/07/politics/main4583057.shtml
These are all the top dogs. Your guy doesn't even show up.

Get back in your cabin and heat up another can of beans.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Look for van jones to step aside soon his past and remarks are not going to pass the test.

I dont think so.

This Obama parade of clowns continues unimpeded because the administration thinks that people arent paying attention.

With the full-fledged assistance from the major media outlets, it doesnt look like Obama will be challenged from anyone but the American people themselves. Lets hope that the American people are enough to put an end to this presidents own private socialist revolution.

[Bronx33]

Instead of focusing on this one guy, why don't you give a small synopsis of all the people that Obama has offering him advice. You pull one little voice out of the hundreds and then presume that this one has the most influence? Really? Hell, he doesn't even have a key position. Not even cabinet level. So he has more influence than Hillary? Than David Axelrod? Than Rahm? Than Robert Gates? Than Tom Vilsack? Really?

Here's a list of Obama's key advisors: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/07/politics/main4583057.shtml
These are all the top dogs. Your guy doesn't even show up.

Get back in your cabin and heat up another can of beans.

The guy hes talking about Mark Lloyd is a special advisor.
He seems to admire how hugo forced private radio broadcasts out whom foiled his first attempt to take over the presidency then squashed them the 2nd time and took over the goverment.
<object width="518" height="419"><param name="movie" value="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=Gd8zprkUZu" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed src="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=Gd8zprkUZu" allowfullscreen="true" width="518" height="419" /></object>

[rastaman]

Hes hoping you might take the time to see what pedigree of people obama wants to bend his ear sadly you havent looked.

Are they any different than the pedigree of folks GW Bush appointed as Czars for his administration during the last 8 years?

Another case in point, "Bob" has been a member of the OM since 2001, so did he start a thread to expose the predigree of Bush appointed Czars btwn 2001-2008?

[Bronx33]

Are they any different than the pedigree of folks GW Bush appointed as Czars for his administration during the last 8 years?

Another case in point, "Bob" has been a member of the OM since 2001, so did he start a thread to expose the predigree of Bush appointed Czars btwn 2001-2008?


Please quit bringing up somebody who is no longer the president it has zero to do with the current administration which is the topic so i will ask you to kindly stay on topic( thank you and have a nice day) and who cares when bob joined.

[Bronx33]

It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press…This freedom is all too often an exaggeration…At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies. ,Prologue to a Farce Mark Lloyd

[rastaman]

Please quit bringing up somebody who is no longer the president it has zero to do with the current administration which is the topic so i will ask you to kindly stay on topic( thank you and have a nice day) and who cares when bob joined.

Okay Bronx33....go ahead and throw out your red herring to fit your argument while attempting to appear the word CZAR has never been used to be affiliated with any previous Administrations merely b/c they are no longer in power. Bush hasn't been out of office a year.....and yet you and your ilk for political expediency want to gloss over his Presidency like it was a bad dream!

Nothing like cherry picking a situation to fit your argument and agenda.

BEWARE OF THE BIG BAD WOLF!!!!

[rastaman]

It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press…This freedom is all too often an exaggeration…At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies. ,Prologue to a Farce Mark Lloyd

Your paranoia delusional state knows no bounds. Charge on Bronx---Charge on! I won't interrupt you.

[Bronx33]

Your paranoia delusional state knows no bounds. Charge on Bronx---Charge on! I won't interrupt you.


It's a signed easily googled quote and it's not by me. :spit:

[Bronx33]

Instead of focusing on this one guy, why don't you give a small synopsis of all the people that Obama has offering him advice. You pull one little voice out of the hundreds and then presume that this one has the most influence? Really? Hell, he doesn't even have a key position. Not even cabinet level. So he has more influence than Hillary? Than David Axelrod? Than Rahm? Than Robert Gates? Than Tom Vilsack? Really?

Here's a list of Obama's key advisors: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/07/politics/main4583057.shtml
These are all the top dogs. Your guy doesn't even show up.

Get back in your cabin and heat up another can of beans.


Heres the list that isn't on .gov anymore...

Richard Holbrooke
Jeffrey Crowley
Ed Montgomery
Alan Bersin
David J. Hayes
Ron Bloom
Dennis Ross
Todd Stern
Lynn Rosenthal
Gil Kerlikowske
Paul Volcker
Carol Browner
Joshua DuBois
Jeffrey Zients
Cameron Davis
Van Jones
Daniel Fried
Nancy-Ann DeParle
Vivek Kundra
Dennis Blair
George Mitchell
Kenneth R. Feinberg
Cass R. Sunstein
John Holdren
Earl Devaney
J. Scott Gration
Herb Allison
Aneesh Chopra
John Brennan
Adolfo Carrion Jr.
Ashton Carter
Gary Samore

[Bob]

Okay Bronx33....go ahead and throw out your red herring to fit your argument while attempting to appear the word CZAR has never been used to be affiliated with any previous Administrations merely b/c they are no longer in power. Bush hasn't been out of office a year.....and yet you and your ilk for political expediency want to gloss over his Presidency like it was a bad dream!

Nothing like cherry picking a situation to fit your argument and agenda.

BEWARE OF THE BIG BAD WOLF!!!!

Wow, did you watch it?

[Bob]

Okay Bronx33....go ahead and throw out your red herring to fit your argument while attempting to appear the word CZAR has never been used to be affiliated with any previous Administrations merely b/c they are no longer in power. Bush hasn't been out of office a year.....and yet you and your ilk for political expediency want to gloss over his Presidency like it was a bad dream!

Nothing like cherry picking a situation to fit your argument and agenda.

BEWARE OF THE BIG BAD WOLF!!!!

Wow, your an ass -- or a communist -- or a commie ass -- go to Cuba, if want this crap!!! It's ime to decide if your an American or a traitor -- its time for everyone to decide who we are-- I'm hoping your just arrogant, lazy twit and didint watch the clip

[Bob]

The guy hes talking about Mark Lloyd is a special advisor.
He seems to admire how hugo forced private radio broadcasts out whom foiled his first attempt to take over the presidency then squashed them the 2nd time and took over the goverment.
<object width="518" height="419"><param name="movie" value="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=Gd8zprkUZu" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed src="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=Gd8zprkUZu" allowfullscreen="true" width="518" height="419" /></object>

Those Dems who are ok with this are not Dems -- sorry, Dems 7% of you have hyjacked your former party and become what your grandparent JFK Dems would be ashamed of -- and are you gonna let it be hyjacked? Time to decide which traditions you more admire... its time to decide if you think that the Constititution is relivant, or a weak guidline, or a barrier to getting want you want -- which is power over the American public.

[Spider]

Those Dems who are ok with this are not Dems -- sorry, Dems 7% of you have become what your grandparent JFK Dems would be ashamed of -- and are you gonna let it be hyjacked? Time to decide which traditions you more admire... its time to decide if you think that the Constititution is relivant, or a weak guidline, or a barrier to getting want you want -- which is power over the American public.
Meh ......... remember when the right said JFK was going to get advice from the pope on how to run this country ? freedom of religion was in danger , that Catholic churches would be in charge ?
We would get our marching orders from the Vatican ?
Yeah same ole song and dance bob ........ you might get all worked up over this , raise the flag and declare how great of a patriot you are , but it is like the chicken you see at the county fair that dances , The chicken is on a hot pad , and when the carnie wants him to dance he turns up the heat ...........

[Bob]

Meh ......... remember when the right said JFK was going to get advice from the pope on how to run this country ? freedom of religion was in danger , that Catholic churches would be in charge ?
We would get our marching orders from the Vatican ?
Yeah same ole song and dance bob ........ you might get all worked up over this , raise the flag and declare how great of a patriot you are , but it is like the chicken you see at the county fair that dances , The chicken is on a hot pad , and when the carnie wants him to dance he turns up the heat ...........

Religous persacution in America has a long tradition -- I know they brought up this concern -- just as Dems will do teh same with Romney -- in both cases, its sad. Canttheyjust dislike someone, like I have come to dislike Romney -- for implimenting a crappy healthcare plan while governor?
Spider I dont have an issue with Dems -- I do with appointing someone who has very recently seen himself as a Communist -- to me, that's a line I will not cross.

I dont understand the heat comment, but I am generally pretty consistant on my stances, and yes I am pretty hot and bothered over several Czar appointments -- why does this pres have to get guys that are so left they are not Dems into posts? How does it help him? It makes him, someone I trust even less. I dont remember Clinton doing this.

[Spider]

Religous persacution in America has a long tradition -- I know they brought up this concern -- just as Dems will do teh same with Romney -- in both cases, its sad. Canttheyjust dislike someone, like I have come to dislike Romney -- for implimenting a crappy healthcare plan while governor?
Spider I dont have an issue with Dems -- I do with appointing someone who has very recently seen himself as a Communist -- to me, that's a line I will not cross.

I dont understand the heat comment, but I am generally pretty consistant on my stances, and yes I am pretty hot and bothered over several Czar appointments -- why does this pres have to get guys that are so left they are not Dems into posts? How does it help him? It makes him, someone I trust even less. I dont remember Clinton doing this.
thats not the point , the point is , we have raised this alarm so many times , people just dont even blink any more , this amounts to nothing .In fact I wouldnt be shocked to find out something major is going on while this guy is a smoke screen ........... Kinda hey look at the left hand meanwhile the right hand in the cookie jar ......As for Clinton look up white Sands New Mexico , and the time Clinton sold Nuke secrets to China ( out of date secrets , but secrets none the less ) talk about a smoke screen ..... Bill Richardson was involved

[rastaman]

Those Dems who are ok with this are not Dems -- sorry, Dems 7% of you have hyjacked your former party and become what your grandparent JFK Dems would be ashamed of -- and are you gonna let it be hyjacked? Time to decide which traditions you more admire... its time to decide if you think that the Constititution is relivant, or a weak guidline, or a barrier to getting want you want -- which is power over the American public.

The Eisenhower Republicans are ashamed of the very conservative-Republicans who elected Reagan, HW Bush, and GW Bush.....so go figure Bob! The Eisenhower Republicans and the Goldwater Republicans would be ashamed how conservatives have allowed their party to be hijacked since the 80's. :sunshine:

Speaking of the Constitution.....where does it say in the Constitution that the Supreme Court is authorized to Select the President of the US!!!

Funny how conservatives-moderates-independents (whatever you call yourselves) cherry pick your way to your own agendas and arguments.

[rastaman]

Wow, your an ass -- or a communist -- or a commie ass -- go to Cuba, if want this crap!!! It's ime to decide if your an American or a traitor -- its time for everyone to decide who we are-- I'm hoping your just arrogant, lazy twit and didint watch the clip

Ummmmm......I felt the same way towards the GOP voters for standing idly by as a fascist Supreme Court Justices primarily consisting of Justices selected by Republican Presidents selected GW Bush into the WH. Naturally things have never been the same since that faithful day. Repubicans put their ideology and their party ahead the Constitution our Democracy, its people and the Republic itself.......just so they're GUY was selected to occupy the WH. So cry me River why don'tcha!!!

Gee Bob I managed to respond to you w/o personally calling you names.