Upgrade to enjoy this feature!
Vital MX fantasy is free to play, but Premium users receive great benefits. Premium benefits include:
- View and download rider stats
- Pick trends
- Create a private league
- And more!
Only $10 for all 2026 SX, MX, and SMX series.
He seems to favor working on Saturday night. Maybe that's the only time he's allowed on the internet at the facility he's in
The Shop
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
Isn't Teabagging some sort of deviant sex act ?
* It was, when I introduced it from the kinky West Indies in 1752.
That's what I want Croom MX to answer
Really?
First off, NONE of them are actually called "Czar". That's just an informal nickname for the job.
For example, the "Domestic Violence Czar" is not called that. She's actually the "White House adviser on Violence Against Women". But it's easier to call her a domestic violence czar in common speak.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "CZAR". IT'S A NICKNAME.
And it's not unconstitutional, either. First off, because it's not a position of nobility, it's a nickname. And a position of nobility is defined as a position that is hereditary in nature. When the "Science Czar" (actually called: Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology) dies, his son does not become the science czar, so it is not "nobility" regardless of the nickname.
And secondly, the other thing they use to call it unconstitutional is this quote from 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.
However, they, without fail, leave out the rest of that paragraph. See that period at the end? In the Constitution, it's actually a colon.
The WHOLE paragraph reads:
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.
(My emphasis.)
So get over it. The czars have no power, except for the ones who are actually called for by the CONGRESS. Otherwise, they have no power. They just advise the president.
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/29391/
See that? Even the nutty Glenn Beck admits, in the beginning of this thing: "Since czar isn't an official job title, the number is somewhat in the eye of the beholder."
Somewhat? No, completely.
On top of that, there are quite a few of them who are, like I said, required by congress. For example, the U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator ("Copyright Czar") was a position created by Congress last year when Bush was in office. They REQUIRE it. And this person will get a senate confirmation.
As for the rest of them, senate "may" vest them "if they so choose". If they don't choose to, they don't have to.
Get over it.
Let me know if anyone posts something that's not completely predictable while I'm gone ......
I was an assistant to a regional czar briefly, yet was let go in a baffling conflict
that left several dumbfounded and others shedding tears of joy and
ounces of butter-fat.
I find it very telling that you choose to spend your free time either on here or at this "meeting of the minds" ranting and raving with no clear purpose about the Government.
As far as I can tell you participate in nearly nothing around here other than politics. None of the football, music, or even moto stuff when it's in season.
How's that working out for you?
i'm in non moto more than anything..so what?
i will begin working soon..lots of work..and i'm the bossman
and for the mentally challeged,like you,i'll repeat what we want from the government
fiscal accountability and quit spending our grand kids future
i know,you obama girls think its great that the government is spending triliions ,no big deal for you idiots
music..there some new obama songs
sing along
'hes got the whole wide world in his hands"
there i have done everything you say i wasn't doing
Bush 31
Obama 32
Pit Row
Here is the same list from 2 weeks ago...
Beck has identified the Czars of the current administration(Advisors if that is what you would like to call them) and what principles these guys have built themselves on. I thought OBAMA was bringing change to the White House. How is this the defense of having all of the Czars? "Bush had them!"
Van Jones in his own words: "A rowdy black nationalist" While in prison he observes the "communist and anarchist and is like....I've got to be a part of this." Van Jones wants to "Change the System" and "Give them the Wealth"
Glenn Beck has identified Van Jones for who he is and it apparantly was an issue.
Nerd - do you not have a problem with self-avowed communist "Advising" the President of the United States?
Another question: What was the definition of "Welfare" in Websters early 1800's dictionary?
Just like I'm a FORMER Republican.
And no, I don't care. He doesn't have any power. It's up to the president to handle who to hire, and who to listen to, and when.
By the way, Van Jones was really ousted for being a 9/11 Truther, not a "communist".
Read what I wrote above. How come NO ONE will comment on that?
And AGAIN, the point is NOT that Van Jones is or WAS the Green Jobs blah blah blah Advisor.................
THE POINT, for THOSE WHO FIND IT DIFFICULT TO SEE is that he is a self-avowed communist. If that is the kind of people that the President surrounds himself with, what does that say about the President?
Cass Sunsteen?
John Holdren?
OR Mark Lloyd? Chief Diversity Officer of the FCC who said: “In Venezuela, with Chavez, is really an incredible revolution - a democratic revolution. To begin to put in place things that are going to have an impact on the people of Venezuela….The property owners and the folks who then controlled the media in Venezuela rebelled - worked, frankly, with folks here in the U.S. government - worked to oust him. But he came back with another revolution, and then Chavez began to take very seriously the media in his country.”
Those evil "property owners" in Venezuela tried to get help from the evil "property owners" here in the U.S. Chavez, the benevolent dictator of Venezuela later overtook the communications of the country and wrestled away control from the evil "property owners." He did all of this to protect the people of course and for the good of the country. Chavez is a socialist. Mark Lloyd praises Chavez. Barack Obama hires Lloyd.
What does it all mean?
Grandma used to say: "Birds of a feather flock together."
"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"
That couldn't be a harmless innocent little Science Czar there in the White House with no power could it? It's no big deal! Bush had Czars! They have no 'Real Power'!
The point of the Czar story:
It has been demonstrated that certain people in the administration, czars/advisors, are quite radical in their activism...i.e. Van Jones. Storm, Rowdy Black National, Communist.
The question is: What power do these advisors have? How could a person with such radical views like Van Jones, be so very close to the President? Is that the policy we are setting? Communism, Socialism, Marxism?
Why can't they just be open about it? AS Obama stated just before the election day: "We are five days from fundamentally changing America!"
Could someone please clarify what those fundamental changes are and will be?
Post a reply to: Teabaggers are over the top