2.Czars are advisors.
3. He is allowed to appoint advisors. (and ambassadors, for that matter)
4. You are some ignorant fool posting on this site.
"Czar or tsar is an informal title for certain high-level officials in the United States and United Kingdom. Political czars can run or organize governmental departments, and may devote their expertise to a single area of work. In the United States, czars are generally executive branch officials appointed by the President either with Senate approval or without it. Some appointees outside the executive branch are called czars as well. Specific instances of the term are often a media creation."
They have existed officially since FDR's administration. And yes, the president is able to appoint them.
I have already stated that I am well aware that he is allowed to appoint them, and I am also stating that Obama is using them to bend the laws of the constitution. PERIOD.
Knights, you have yet to explain how Obama ideologically is a communist. Simply not abiding the constitution does not make you a communist.
http://www.theblueprintbook.net/ This book is what I would have to type into these comments.
Ambassadors are not allowed to be appointed by the president. He is using czars to do so. I hate conspiracies, but when it comes down to it I couldn't agree more with this book because the facts provided really prove Obama's plan. Not to mention the writers were once office officials.
I hate how socialism and communism's definition (and fascism too I guess) is so vague in today's society it's become a catch-all phrase for bad, even when half to time what people refer to isn't either.
"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."
The book shows the examples that I would like to show you here but simply can't. You won't understand anything I am trying to say without knowing what the book says. This debate would be easier if it were about the book, but it's not. Perhaps we can agree to disagree for the time being.
I couldn't agree more.
relax guys I think he may be KKK.
When I read this thread, I see that approximately only half the people here know what communism is . the other half appear to believe that communism = a form of dictatorship.
Communism wasn't an ideology of imprisoning people.
Communism was an ideology that government can work in the efforts of it's people.
It's the idea we have corrupted. And we're actually still scared of it.
Just like everybody was scared of it and it's controversy in the Cold era.
I'm talking about the ideology behind conflict theory.
I'm not talking about Marxism or any other political platforms
Conflict theory is about CLASS WARFARE.
I believe that CLASS WARFARE can be acknowledged on the FEDERAL level.
The definition federalism is democracy compatible.
CLASS WARFARE is taught in colleges, and it's why our youth is the way it is.
So you better thank god somebody is acknowledging reality.
And what do you mean by "class warfare is taught in colleges" and who is it that is acknowledging reality?
EDUCATION SAVES PEOPLE. STOP BEING SUCH A FUCKING IDIOT.
(User was banned for this post ("This is NOT how you debate - Flaming" - Craptasket))
Can you guys please tell me that where the hell I'm wrong. You continue to call me "mentally incapable" in this thread and the 2 others. Inform me. Please.
Once again. I don't support Communism. I support the idea that if there's 2 people, one of them is taking advantage of the other.
The peoples mockery of the wall street movement only advocated one thing: THE MOCKERY OF FREE SPEECH IN PROGRESS.
If free speech is mocked in news, then who's tell the truth anymore.
i can post proof.
Socialism -> More than likely yes.
Communism -> Definitely not.
If you want an example why, compare many of the fairly Socialist countries like Japan or The Netherlands, to the extreme communist Best Korea.
Japan as well can hardly be described as a 'socialist' country, because they too do not have cooperative ownership of industry.