We apologize, but the forums are closed for new posts. Click Here To Join The Unemployables Facebook Group

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 24, 2021, 01:33:50 am
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 24, 2021, 01:33:50 am
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register

Author Topic: Yet ANOTHER example of why "CZAR's" who are not vetter are a BAD idea...  (Read 9948 times)

PositiveOutlook

  • Guest
Fistgate III: Obama’s Safe Schools Czar’s ‘Black Book’ For Kids Included Tips on Fisting and Pi$$ing on Your Partner
by Jim Hoft

http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/09/fistgate-iii-obamas-safe-schools-czars-black-book-for-kids-included-tips-on-fisting-and-piing-on-your-partner/


Obama made this guy the "Safe Schools Czar" and he is now running the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools in the US Department of Education.  This is NOT what education is about...  With such a radical POV and having exposed kids to such debauchery, why would ANY parent feel safe with this guy involved with anything having to do with kids and school?

This is just another example of WHY these Czar's are so dangerous... by calling them a Czar, they bypass the Congress' Advise and Consent role... as we've seen with Obama radical Czar appointments, it becomes easier to destroy from within...

Offline propertymanager

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4854
Re: Yet ANOTHER example of why "CZAR's" who are not vetter are a BAD idea...
« Reply #1 on: December 09, 2009, 04:46:56 pm »
So much for safe schools!
www.1MinuteToRentalPropertyRichs.com 
This No-Hype, No-Nonsense Book is a step by step course in making money and building wealth with rental properties!  Everything from buying properties at a discount to dealing with terrible tenants.  Now In Paperback!

Offline Hoosier4life2005

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1007
    • www.myspace.com/hoosierluv
Re: Yet ANOTHER example of why "CZAR's" who are not vetter are a BAD idea...
« Reply #2 on: December 09, 2009, 06:35:49 pm »
Just wait guys.... Im sure FurnishedOwner will explain how Obama is GREAT for doing this..

Waiting for her response..
Im Josh Azbell and im 20.  Add me on facebook :)  Im from Indiana.  I am going to be a Real Estate investor.

Offline JakeRodgers

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 640
Re: Yet ANOTHER example of why "CZAR's" who are not vetter are a BAD idea...
« Reply #3 on: December 09, 2009, 09:49:37 pm »
Wow. I have no witty response or quip on this one. It's just scary...

Offline robdedgar

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 267
Re: Yet ANOTHER example of why "CZAR's" who are not vetter are a BAD idea...
« Reply #4 on: December 09, 2009, 09:56:49 pm »
Are the people he appoints to these positions just out to make him look stupider?  :biggrin
Check out my website for interesting free offers and promotions, www.interesting-offers.com.

Offline justin0419

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2489
Re: Yet ANOTHER example of why "CZAR's" who are not vetter are a BAD idea...
« Reply #5 on: December 09, 2009, 11:33:27 pm »
For those of you who want to see something else about this guy besides from a blog:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/28/at-the-presidents-pleasure/
If you like rock music, check out www.Lynamsucks.com
New EP titled "Halfway to Hell" is now available!
Check out the merch store on Lynam's website.

Offline propertymanager

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4854
Re: Yet ANOTHER example of why "CZAR's" who are not vetter are a BAD idea...
« Reply #6 on: December 10, 2009, 06:25:18 am »
Quote
Are the people he appoints to these positions just out to make him look stupider?

No, the President CHOSE these people and he knows EXACTLY who they are.  These people reflect the attitude and philosophy of the President.  He's a SOCIALIST and he's not even trying to keep it a secret.  Short of wearing a sign around his neck that says "I'm A Socialist", I don't know what else he could do to let everyone know who he is.
www.1MinuteToRentalPropertyRichs.com 
This No-Hype, No-Nonsense Book is a step by step course in making money and building wealth with rental properties!  Everything from buying properties at a discount to dealing with terrible tenants.  Now In Paperback!

PositiveOutlook

  • Guest
Re: Yet ANOTHER example of why "CZAR's" who are not vetter are a BAD idea...
« Reply #7 on: December 10, 2009, 06:36:59 am »
After all, Obama himself said to judge him by the people he would surround himself with... quite a cast of characters to present his own character...

As Propertymanager said, he is telling us who he really is...  either that, or he is completely incompetent... I almost wish that this were the case, but too many of these czar's have turned out to be complete radicals, and since czars are appointed BY the President, Obama really has no excuse...  this is just another example of how dangerous czar's who are not vetted by the Congress can be... 

This is NOT the change people were hoping for...  Obama really had quite a historic opportunity that he has thus far completely blown, and at the same time, put the country in a bad position domestically and internationally...

Offline Bluemoon06

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3212
Re: Yet ANOTHER example of why "CZAR's" who are not vetter are a BAD idea...
« Reply #8 on: December 10, 2009, 08:46:30 am »
Alright guys.  What is his job?
Real estate to Retire you
http://sphinxwealth.com/

Offline propertymanager

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4854
Re: Yet ANOTHER example of why "CZAR's" who are not vetter are a BAD idea...
« Reply #9 on: December 10, 2009, 09:00:01 am »
...to protect and defend the constitution of the United States.  However, he thinks his job is to create a new Unites Socialist States of America!
www.1MinuteToRentalPropertyRichs.com 
This No-Hype, No-Nonsense Book is a step by step course in making money and building wealth with rental properties!  Everything from buying properties at a discount to dealing with terrible tenants.  Now In Paperback!

Offline Bluemoon06

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3212
Re: Yet ANOTHER example of why "CZAR's" who are not vetter are a BAD idea...
« Reply #10 on: December 10, 2009, 11:17:47 am »
No his job is to head the safe and drug free schools program.  His job has nothing to do with kissing anybody.  He is basically a bureaucrat that deals with funding for safety programs and drug prevention programs in schools that do more than just say no.

He has no policy responsibility.  His job is to make the program go, not make policy.  So what does that have to do with socialism?

Why are you guys so hard on Obama?  Somebody has to run this country it may as well be him.
Real estate to Retire you
http://sphinxwealth.com/

PositiveOutlook

  • Guest
Re: Yet ANOTHER example of why "CZAR's" who are not vetter are a BAD idea...
« Reply #11 on: December 10, 2009, 12:19:46 pm »
Bluemoon06,

"No his job is to head the safe and drug free schools program.  His job has nothing to do with kissing anybody. He is basically a bureaucrat that deals with funding for safety programs and drug prevention programs in schools that do more than just say no."

Are you serious?   :shocked      So the fact that he OPENLY PROMOTES debauchery to MINORS and is now in a position where his influence through materials being deciminated to minors in school in programs he develops is no concern???

Well, if that's the case, then we ought not worry about doing background checks for people in bureaucratic roles... whats the point in vetting them?... we could save LOTS of money that way...   :rolleyes

"He has no policy responsibility."

BS... he reports directly to Obama..

"His job is to make the program go, not make policy.  So what does that have to do with socialism?"

Wacko ideas and programs are dangerous things indeed... this is WHY Congress has the advise and consent powers for those who give input to the President... Czars remove that role and as has been evidenced by Obama's choices for Czars, they can get any unvetted radical in...  If you think they have no influence, you are kidding yourself...


"Why are you guys so hard on Obama?  Somebody has to run this country it may as well be him."

Because we are watching him cause so much damage to the country... I can think of MANY other people more capable and more supportive of the founding of this great country than Obama...

Offline Bluemoon06

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3212
Re: Yet ANOTHER example of why "CZAR's" who are not vetter are a BAD idea...
« Reply #12 on: December 10, 2009, 12:47:23 pm »
Bluemoon06,

"No his job is to head the safe and drug free schools program.  His job has nothing to do with kissing anybody. He is basically a bureaucrat that deals with funding for safety programs and drug prevention programs in schools that do more than just say no."

Are you serious?   :shocked      So the fact that he OPENLY PROMOTES debauchery to MINORS and is now in a position where his influence through materials being deciminated to minors in school in programs he develops is no concern???

Well, if that's the case, then we ought not worry about doing background checks for people in bureaucratic roles... whats the point in vetting them?... we could save LOTS of money that way...   :rolleyes

He will always be debauched.  That has nothing to do with his job, it has to do what who he has sex with.  I don’t think being heterosexual is a job requirement.


"He has no policy responsibility."

BS... he reports directly to Obama..


He does report to the President and so does his secretary.  She doesn’t have any policy setting responsibility either.  That is the problem with people running around giving the title Czar to all these advisors and bureaucrats.  They are not czars.

"His job is to make the program go, not make policy.  So what does that have to do with socialism?"

Wacko ideas and programs are dangerous things indeed... this is WHY Congress has the advise and consent powers for those who give input to the President... Czars remove that role and as has been evidenced by Obama's choices for Czars, they can get any unvetted radical in...  If you think they have no influence, you are kidding yourself...

Anybody that leads needs to have free access to ideas.  Wacky ones are the best because they cause you to find out where the envelop is so that we can progress.  Can you imagine how wacky the idea was to make a machine that could fly?  That is why it does not require congressional approval.

"Why are you guys so hard on Obama?  Somebody has to run this country it may as well be him."

Because we are watching him cause so much damage to the country... I can think of MANY other people more capable and more supportive of the founding of this great country than Obama...

You act like he is the only president that caused damage to this country.  If this country is so fragile that it must be kept under a bell jar and never moved.  You really want to conserve what we have instead of move the country forward then you must be a conserver…I mean a conservative.  We have to move forward.  When JFK decided he would try to overthrow the government of Cuba it caused “damage” to the country but worth the try, when Carter tried to effect a rescue of the hostages it “damaged” the county but needed to be tried, when Reagan tried to run guns to the Sandinista it “damaged” the country but needed to be done.  When Bush invaded Iraq…the jury is still out but it surely “damaged” the country.  That is what the President does.  When you go out and run or lift weights.  The tissues are “damaged” or broken down so that they can re form stronger and better.  You have to “damage” the country or you are placeholder.  Who wants a placeholder President?
Real estate to Retire you
http://sphinxwealth.com/

PositiveOutlook

  • Guest
Re: Yet ANOTHER example of why "CZAR's" who are not vetter are a BAD idea...
« Reply #13 on: December 10, 2009, 01:44:21 pm »
Bluemoon06,

"He will always be debauched.  That has nothing to do with his job, it has to do what who he has sex with.  I don’t think being heterosexual is a job requirement."

I never mentioned anything about who he was having sex with, nor whether he was homosexual or not, the debauchery I was referring to was what he was CAUGHT PROMOTING TO KIDS and without parental KNOWLEDGE to boot...  this lack of discernment and judgment on his part is MORE than enough reason to disqualify him from having any influence or contact with kids...  Otherwise, there is no reason NOT to have a pedophile work with kids programs where they would exert influence, but not have direct contact with kids...


"Anybody that leads needs to have free access to ideas.  Wacky ones are the best because they cause you to find out where the envelop is so that we can progress.  Can you imagine how wacky the idea was to make a machine that could fly?  That is why it does not require congressional approval."

Comparing flight to teaching KIDS about fisting. rimming and other debaucherous acts is a weird way to make your argument... It would lead one to believe you are OK with teaching KIDS this...

"You act like he is the only president that caused damage to this country."

I see, so that's a reason to go along with the damage that he is doing, because "others" have before...  well then, I guess we should just let him do whatever he wants.. damn the cost...   :rolleyes


"If this country is so fragile that it must be kept under a bell jar and never moved.  You really want to conserve what we have instead of move the country forward then you must be a conserver…I mean a conservative.  We have to move forward."

That argument could be used to continue to strip away our rights and give away our sovereignty...  If movement is all we need... then there is no need to defend that for which we believe, nor do we need right per se...  Having rights IS keeping the status quo...

"When you go out and run or lift weights.  The tissues are “damaged” or broken down so that they can re form stronger and better.  You have to “damage” the country or you are placeholder.  Who wants a placeholder President?"

Interesting analogy, however, more analogous would be the guy whose arms blew up... he exercised them so much, in the wrong way, with the wrong influences (steroids) that his biceps literally blew up causing PERMANENT damage... He is NOT the better for it..

In this case, I don't want to live in a socialistic country, nor do I wish to give up our sovereignty or rights just so we can "move forward"...   



Offline Bluemoon06

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3212
Re: Yet ANOTHER example of why "CZAR's" who are not vetter are a BAD idea...
« Reply #14 on: December 10, 2009, 03:17:56 pm »
Bluemoon06,

"He will always be debauched.  That has nothing to do with his job, it has to do what who he has sex with.  I don’t think being heterosexual is a job requirement."

I never mentioned anything about who he was having sex with, nor whether he was homosexual or not, the debauchery I was referring to was what he was CAUGHT PROMOTING TO KIDS and without parental KNOWLEDGE to boot...  this lack of discernment and judgment on his part is MORE than enough reason to disqualify him from having any influence or contact with kids...  Otherwise, there is no reason NOT to have a pedophile work with kids programs where they would exert influence, but not have direct contact with kids...


"Anybody that leads needs to have free access to ideas.  Wacky ones are the best because they cause you to find out where the envelop is so that we can progress.  Can you imagine how wacky the idea was to make a machine that could fly?  That is why it does not require congressional approval."

Comparing flight to teaching KIDS about fisting. rimming and other debaucherous acts is a weird way to make your argument... It would lead one to believe you are OK with teaching KIDS this...

Since we are not homosexuals we really can’t understand what it takes to raise a successful gay kid.  The parents of those kids probably needed some help teaching them to do the things that make them gay without hurting themselves.  His job has nothing to do with contact with children although he is not a pedophile, just a Peter Pan leading young homosexual kids through the dark forest of heterosexuality to the fairy land of gayness.

"You act like he is the only president that caused damage to this country."

I see, so that's a reason to go along with the damage that he is doing, because "others" have before...  well then, I guess we should just let him do whatever he wants.. damn the cost...   :rolleyes


No President gets to do whatever he wants.  Remember you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs.

"If this country is so fragile that it must be kept under a bell jar and never moved.  You really want to conserve what we have instead of move the country forward then you must be a conserver…I mean a conservative.  We have to move forward."

That argument could be used to continue to strip away our rights and give away our sovereignty...  If movement is all we need... then there is no need to defend that for which we believe, nor do we need right per se...  Having rights IS keeping the status quo...

I do not know every right and every gaining or losing of them.  Maybe I didn’t get it so tell me what rights are we losing and what sovereignty have we given away?


In this case, I don't want to live in a socialistic country, nor do I wish to give up our sovereignty or rights just so we can "move forward"...  

There is nothing wrong with socialism.  We already live in a socialist country.  What part of socialism do you have a problem with?
Real estate to Retire you
http://sphinxwealth.com/

 




SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines