Register
Events
Popular
More
Post #41
1. Czars aren't ambassadors.
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.
-
-
They aren't ambassadors. They simply work as ambassadors at the president's request.
Edited:
Reverting to insults is where our conversation ends. I do not tolerate it. Possibly next time you will speak with reason. Thank you.
-
the president does appoint ambassadors, plus the czars do nothing ambassador like, at all.
-
They probably think of syndicalism. And a small communist country wouldn't have trouble with importing and exporting unless you get something like a cold war or anything else that would block it and isn't government type or etc specific.
-
sorry for calling you a fool, but you know nothing about what you are saying. In one post, you showed that you don't know what ambassadors or czars are, or what the presidents powers are. Why should I argue with someone who doesn't research what he is saying?
-
No, a czar is this:
"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.
-
Marxism is anarchistic.
-
Take a look at the beginning. "They can run or organize governmental departments and devote their expertise to a single area of work". He is using them to work America towards an imperial presidency. If you read the last part, there are some appointees outside the executive branch as well. They are called czars as well, and each czar has his/her position. The president may have his czars work as ambassadors.
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.
-
How and through what is he moving America towards an imperial presidency?
This is true.
Again, how is he bending the laws of the constitution? Specific examples would be nice.
-
Knights, you have yet to explain how Obama ideologically is a communist. Simply not abiding the constitution does not make you a communist.
-
oh god, your right! assigning a czar to head a government department is pure imperialism! we must shut down the department of State, department of transportation, department of education, and all others!
-
I hate posting links to exterior sources, but much of what I have to say takes a rather long time to explain. 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.
-
Yeah man, let's get rid of these marxist endeavors, like the Department of State! That just sounds like it's straight out of nazi germany!
"established 1789"
oh
-
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.
-
It does make you a communist when you break them for communism. I highly encourage you to call up some of your public officials and representatives and ask questions.
-
oh really?U.S. Constitution posted:
Edited:
when did he break them for communism?
-
Actually yes the president can appoint them, just with Senate approval. Czars are not ambassadors, and are only sometimes approved by the Senate, but as for ambassadors, I quote the constitution:
"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."
-
Of course he can with senate approval, my bad. That's what I had meant from the beginning. He can't do it without consent of the senate, but he has appointed the czars without consent.
-
Well hold on now. You said just a moment ago that the president flat out CANNOT appoint ambassadors. Czars are sometimes confirmed by the Senate, sometimes not.
-
most of them are senate approved. And they still aren't doing anything communist like.
-
Speaking of which, I've yet to hear how they're moving anything towards Communism. Unless they're pushing for collective ownership of the means of production or abolition of the state, then they certainly aren't.
-
-
The president can NOT appoint them by himself. That is what I meant. I am stating that Obama is bending the law by appointing czars that work as ambassadors.
-
Right, so I understand that. However, now we need to address your other assertion: How are these czars moving America towards an imperial presidency and moving us towards Communism? Saying I should go read a book does not fly in a debate, you need to at least cite text from the book if you believe it's credible.
-
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.
-
If you aren't willing to substantiate your position with citations, then you don't have a leg to stand on. Book or no book, it's the way a debate works.
-
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.
facepalm *9999
-
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.
-
Marxism advocates for the abolition of the state after the workers own the means of production (among other things).
-
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.
-
I was addressing this bit: "Communism was an ideology that government can work in the efforts of it's people."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?
-
I LEARNED ALL OF THIS IN MY FUCKING COLLEGE SOCIOLOGY CLASS.
EDUCATION SAVES PEOPLE. STOP BEING SUCH A FUCKING IDIOT.
-.-
nuff said.
(User was banned for this post ("This is NOT how you debate - Flaming" - Craptasket))
-
lmao i have a hard time believing you took a real sociology class
-
I'm not saying that education is unimportant, I can't even understand what you're trying to say.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_conflict
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.
http://www.mittvmitt.com/
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.
Edited:
yeah, i actually aced it.
i can post proof.
-
"I took one sociology class and now I'm an expert on politics and economic ideologies."
-
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.
-
I'm not calling you mentally incapable, I just can't understand your posts. They're pretty incoherent.
Who are you thinking of as 'the people'? I know Fox and CNN mocked OWS, but I can think of other organizations that gave it fairer treatment, like MSNBC or The Young Turks.
Edited:
I've said it before and I'll say it again, North Korea is not Communist. The workers do not own the means of production and the state is totalitarian, not gone.
Japan as well can hardly be described as a 'socialist' country, because they too do not have cooperative ownership of industry.
