Do YOU even KNOW if Bush's Czars were not communist , fascist, radicals, unqualified, idiots, not vetted... etc?
Not to be simple here...but honestly, DID YOU EVEN CARE who Bush's czars were and how inefficient or incapable or stupid and unqualified they really were for their positions?
The truth of the matter is that NO ONE or near NO ONE cared about who Bush put in as his czars from the RIGHT....you all just ACCEPTED THEM without giving them the scrutiny that you are giving the Obama czars...
Not to diminish this concern now of actually opening your eyes and questioning things but it appears to me:
THIS IS ALL POLITICS I'm sad to say....and YOU SHOULD see this when you examine yourselves and ask yourselves whether you had this much concern and scrutiny given, for the Bush Czars that he appointed....your Strings are being pulled...maybe you don't realize it, but they are....
For the MOST PART i see this as Bull Crud....as with all the other Crying Wolf that has been going on and shows hypocrisy to the enth degree.
Is it against the law to have a communistic or socialistic or capitalistic view on things? Is this still the McCarthy paranoia days?
Just way toooooo much background noise from the right imo, and THIS WILL COME BACK to bite you...because the actual threat when and if it comes, will not be heard through the background noise.
Pick and choose wisely your battles or they all become 'background chatter" that is not heard...that's my advice! But ...carry on all and do your thing....
IF YOU REALLY CARED about all of this you would ACCEPT what you did previously was WRONG and hypocritical and just say,
"you are right, I did not pay attention under the Bush reign to these kind of things because he was a Republican and I trusted him with his picks, just as you all trust obama with his picks because he is a Democrat. I am being a hypocrite over this now because i did ignore the Bush Czars, BUT DOES 2 WRONGS MAKE IT RIGHT? Should I continue to ignore the things that now stand out to me because my eyes are finally opened just because I was comfortably snoozing earlier, under President Bush?"
And then the debate could continue from there....
But I suppose I live in my own little wishful fantasy world, where everyone can debate and argue honestly and fairly....
Care
Well, here's your chance to argue HONESTLY...
WHY DIDN'T THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA REPORT ON BUSH'S APPOINTMENTS????
Maybe it's because there wasn't much to report. Are you REALLY going to blame their lack of coverage on the public? We would have probably NEVER known about all the czars that have been around for years, if it hadn't been for the scandalous activities of several of Obama's appointees.
I don't know why all the Anti Bush news agencies didn't cover the czar appointments made by Bush. Maybe it was because they were too busy making up false reports about Bush's military record. Maybe they were too occupied with finding as many negative stories they could about the war in Iraq.
Any ideas?
longhorn...your timing is off...
there was no iraq war(that was 2003), it was before 9/11/2001 when Bush picked most of his czars...the news consortium had come out already in march of 2001 all saying Bush won the election...at least in the recounts this consortium of news papers did.... so, I don't think those things can be used as excuses....as to why they did not cover it back then....
But, my post had nothing to do with the media, in any way...so how did this even get in to the conversation with a response to my post Tex?
Care