Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/ ... U120090529

Or, as Republican Senator John McCain likes to say, Obama has "more czars than the Romanovs," who ruled Russia for three centuries.

Get over it McPalin - you lost!

dbackjon wrote:Get over it McPalin - you lost!

Are you the Dick Czar?

AZGrizFan wrote:http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/ ... U120090529

Or, as Republican Senator John McCain likes to say, Obama has "more czars than the Romanovs," who ruled Russia for three centuries.

This article simply points out the difference between an administration that values outside input and feedback - in direct opposition to the previous administration that closed it's doors to virtually all outside input information...

In order to make good decisions it usually takes data... and lots of it from multiple sources

In STARK contrast to what we've seen previously

AZGrizFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Get over it McPalin - you lost!

Are you the Dick Czar?

Too obvious,too easy.

Chizzang wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/ ... U120090529

This article simply points out the difference between an administration that values outside input and feedback - in direct opposition to the previous administration that closed it's doors to virtually all outside input information...

In order to make good decisions it usually takes data... and lots of it from multiple sources

In STARK contrast to what we've seen previously

actually what it points out is this (and any) democratic administrations love of more more more layers of bureaucracy. Layers that will be impossible to EVER remove because we all know the government NEVER gets smaller, only bigger.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
This article simply points out the difference between an administration that values outside input and feedback - in direct opposition to the previous administration that closed it's doors to virtually all outside input information...

In order to make good decisions it usually takes data... and lots of it from multiple sources

In STARK contrast to what we've seen previously

actually what it points out is this (and any) democratic administrations love of more more more layers of bureaucracy. Layers that will be impossible to EVER remove because we all know the government NEVER gets smaller, only bigger.

How about we abolish the Department of Homeland Security? Thast would be a good start.

houndawg wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
actually what it points out is this (and any) democratic administrations love of more more more layers of bureaucracy. Layers that will be impossible to EVER remove because we all know the government NEVER gets smaller, only bigger.

How about we abolish the Department of Homeland Security? Thast would be a good start.

I completely concur Hound.

Chizzang wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/ ... U120090529

In order to make good decisions it usually takes data... and lots of it from multiple sources

In STARK contrast to what we've seen previously

And then they have the colossal shamelessness to even show their faces in public! Let alone actuallyexpecting people to listen to them and take them seriously.

Or even believe a single word that slinks out of their lying, filthy, venal, pie-holes.


The Republican Party is the political equivalent of tertiary syphillis.

houndawg wrote:The Republican Party is the political equivalent of tertiary syphillis.

Looks like the American people are stuck between shiat (Democratic party) and syphillis

ASUMountaineer wrote:

houndawg wrote:
How about we abolish the Department of Homeland Security? Thast would be a good start.

I completely concur Hound.

Fine. I'd like nothing more than to see Janet "I'm a Dyke" Napolitano slink off into the sewer without a job. Followed closely by the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

AZGrizFan wrote:

ASUMountaineer wrote:
I completely concur Hound.

Fine. I'd like nothing more than to see Janet "I'm a Dyke" Napolitano slink off into the sewer without a job. Followed closely by the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Agree......but that DHS thing kind of blows a hole in your "this (and any) democratic administrations love of more more more layers of bureaucracy" theory.....Speaking of czars, how's the Drug Czar (started by Nixon) & Intelligence Czar (started by Bush II) concept working out?

AZGrizFan wrote:

ASUMountaineer wrote:
I completely concur Hound.

Fine. I'd like nothing more than to see Janet "I'm a Dyke" Napolitano slink off into the sewer without a job. Followed closely by the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

You left out the IRS.

Appaholic wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:

Fine. I'd like nothing more than to see Janet "I'm a Dyke" Napolitano slink off into the sewer without a job. Followed closely by the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Agree......but that DHS thing kind of blows a hole in your "this (and any) democratic administrations love of more more more layers of bureaucracy" theory.....Speaking of czars, how's the Drug Czar (started by Nixon) & Intelligence Czar (started by Bush II) concept working out?

Drugs, fine. Intelligence, no I'll keep that one.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Appaholic wrote:
Agree......but that DHS thing kind of blows a hole in your "this (and any) democratic administrations love of more more more layers of bureaucracy" theory.....Speaking of czars, how's the Drug Czar (started by Nixon) & Intelligence Czar (started by Bush II) concept working out?

Drugs, fine. Intelligence, no I'll keep that one.

...because we don't have enough intelligence agencies? Or because we need another layer of bureacracy added to the agencies we currently have?

Appaholic wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Drugs, fine. Intelligence, no I'll keep that one.

...because we don't have enough intelligence agencies? Or because we need another layer of bureacracy added to the agencies we currently have?

Sorry, I misunderstood. The Intelligence CZAR should go. The Agencies should stay.