Vennbama 5 500x375 Vennbama

Pause for a moment for a sponsor!

Leave a comment ?

35 Responses to Vennbama

  1. Aw thank you handy Venn diagram, you figured it all out for me. Now I don’t even have to think for myself, PHEW.

  2. Bullshit: socialist. Obama is a conservative democrat. Of course, the flat-earth, libertarians on the other side might make him seem like a left-winger.

    Where is single-payer health care? Where are tax increases on those with more than 250k?

    Look, I know the demagogues said it, and it feels good to believe it, but sometimes ideas are not facts.

  3. Don’t forget he’s in command of the most powerful gang in the world.
    Yes, the military is now a gang becauses there’s a black president.

  4. These Venn adjectives seem like they were picked by throwing darts at a wall of words. How bizarre.

    In related news, Toxoplasma infections make you schizophrenic, and 1/3 of the US (at least) has it.

  5. What’s with “czars” being a buzzword all of the sudden? Everyone knows that the whole “czar” thing started with Nixon, right? And that their actual job title is not “czar”?

    • Actually I believe it started with Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Also not too many people know that Bush employed more “czars” than Obama. IIRC Obama just nixed some old positions and created new ones and of course the opposition ran wild with it. Still the fact of the matter is that these Czars can get into power with or without congressional approval and the only person they have to legally answer to is the president. Obama or not it is a dangerous system. I mean think of it this way. You are a scientist correct Reboot? Do you really like knowing that our nations Science and Technology policies are completely determined by someone that no scientist ever consented to electing? Personally i think it would be better to have one of the “sanctioning bodies” (for lack of a better term) of scientists to work in conjunction with congress and the general populace to hold elections for such a thing. Of course this means people would have to crack open a few books and websites and research the people up for nomination/election, but at least it would garner more interest in Science. But Science Czar is just an example mind you, I guess a simplified version of it would be to say “let the people and congress elect our “czars” instead of leaving the decision up to one man.” What do you think?

      • Let’s see…appointed by a President or chosen by Congress…either way they’re being picked by people who owe favors to the mega-corporations who gave them millions in campaign contributions. The people won’t have much voice either way.

      • So the President, who is elected to direct executive-branch policy, can’t delegate that responsibility to other people? Nobody would be complaining if these “czars” were only referred to by their official titles, like the “drug czar”- aka Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy- or the “green jobs czar”- aka Special Advisor for Green Jobs, Enterprise, and Innovation.

        Besides, some of these people are in positions which require confirmation by the Senate… the “technology czar”- aka Associate Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy- a man named Aneesh Chopra, has been confirmed by the senate:

        If you look around a little bit, you’ll see that a number of other “czars” like the “government accountability czar” and the “TARP czar” also hold positions at the consent of the Senate. Others are simply advisors, and I’d be very curious to hear an argument stating that the president shouldn’t have advisors.

        Maybe your problem with what the media and Republicans have been trumpeting as “czars” sounds good in principle, but it might be a good idea to check out how things ACTUALLY WORK first.

        • “nobody would be complaining if these â€œczarsâ€ were only referred to by their official titles, like the â€œdrug czarâ€- aka Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy- or the â€œgreen jobs czarâ€- aka Special Advisor for Green Jobs, Enterprise, and Innovation.”

          Actually jade i agree with you there, if they had another name peoples reactions wouldn’t be as voracious.Still, Czars, moguls, kaisers, directors, administrators, whatever the hell you want to call them i do not believe the president alone should have the power to appoint ANYONE regardless of qualifications into a position of power without congressional or general populace approval.

          “Maybe your problem with what the media and Republicans have been trumpeting as â€œczarsâ€ sounds good in principle, but it might be a good idea to check out how things ACTUALLY WORK first.”

          mmmmmm assumptions, assumptions, assumptions.

          First off, you are assuming that i am listening exclusively to the right wing. I pointed out that Bush ( a republican if you call correctly) appointed the same amount of czars as obama did. In fact i believe obama CUT the amount of czars that bush had. I was actually defending our current president. I also never said that every “czar” was not approved by congress, just that the president has the power to appoint czars. Now i went back and did my research again and saw that the example i gave was not an accurate one, but still it is by SENATE approval, there is no approval from the House of Representatives or the general populace.

          • Now you’re assuming that I’m assuming… Your problem is with “czars.” The large majority of commentary about (or, for that matter, mention of) “czars” nowadays comes from the media and Republicans. I’m not saying you are either a member of the media or a Republican, just running with their line of discourse.

            I would agree that a position like Director of the ONDCP should require approval, although simply stating that the current system only involves the Senate fails to persuade me that that is insufficient, much less that approval by the House or by plebiscite would really be better options (I can think of a number of reasons why they wouldn’t). For a position like Special Advisor for this and that, I would not be nearly as worried about an approval process; the difference is between saying that something is the best policy and actually implementing it.

      • Yeah, it might of started with FDR, Nixon’s Energy Czar was the earliest one I new about.
        “Czar” is such a blanket term. The only positions that have actual authority are the ones created by congress; everyone else is just advisers. And since there is no “Department of Science”, the President should have a science adviser of some sort on staff and choosing your own staff is definitely the President’s right.
        As far as one person making science policy, that’s ridiculous. The biggest influence government has on science is through funding. And funding always has to be approved by congress.

        • I did not know that funding needed to be approved by congress.

          “And since there is no â€œDepartment of Scienceâ€, the President should have a science adviser of some sort on staff and choosing your own staff is definitely the Presidentâ€™s right.”

          Well yeah in that respect i agree. It’s just there is a whole office devoted to things such as our nations science policy and theoretically the president could bypass senatorial sanction for the appointment of a “czar”. I mean obviously the president shouldn’t make uninformed decisions about funding sciences education or other areas of importance.

          • The actual title of the so-called “science czar” is Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy and he was unanimously confirmed by the Senate.
            So I don’t really see what you’re disagreeing with at this point.

          • Well the only thing i really think i am disagreeing with is the idea that the president holds the ability to create offices of power or “czars” regardless of senate approval. President Bush, Johnson, Obama and roosevelt have appointed “Czars” based on nothing other than executive order/presidential appointment.

            “The actual title of the so-called â€œscience czarâ€ is Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy and he was unanimously confirmed by the Senate.
            So I donâ€™t really see what youâ€™re disagreeing with at this point.”

            I already know that. I already said my example of Science Czar was not an accurate one for my argument ( at least that is what i intended to say, i probably should have elaborated.) And i am not disagreeing with anything per se. I mean you and i both demonstrated that the whole Czar thing is nothing new. I also agree that the term “czar” is a blanket term. So again, what i am disagreeing with is that the president has the power to create offices/czars/organizations/whateverthefuckyouwanttocallit, without senate approval. If i were to admonish one president i would have to admonish everyone since FDR. I don’t get what you are defending since i have already demonstrated that this is not a problem that lies with a specific person or party. Now if i may be cocky here i think the reason that you assume i am disagreeing with a specific person is typically touted by conservatives and republicans and you and other people are having a though out knee jerk reaction because of that. In addition this is also a popular talking point on anti-obama arguments and seeing as this is an anti-obama image you may have a preconceived notion that statements against the system in use by our current president is a direct statement against the president. But you are right in that i did fail to make the distinction that “Czars” are not 100% empowered by the president. But the reality is that this system has been in use before obama was even born.

            You said that people with “real positions of authority” in the “czar” term are nominated by the senate and president. In turn one could argue that neither the senate or president alone should have this power because it disrupts the distribution of power by undermining our system of checks and balances. But at that point you are arguing the basic mechanics of how our government is run. I guess that is the point i may be making here. The concept of “czars” as a blanket term for all figures of presidential and senatorial nominated authorities is an inherently unbalanced system which can lead to abuse. I mean in reality we are probably safe assuming the government hasn’t been infiltrated by people who intend to abuse that power since it has been demonstrated that offices such as OSTP and ONDCP were headed by people elected by the senate. I guess ultimately that is my point. It is a system that has potential for massive abuse regardless of party lines or senatorial/presidential decree. That is why i do not support it. Even though it can work, it creates problems that we shouldn’t have to begin with. But i guess that is the problem with all politics. I mean a republic can inadvertently create an oligarchy and capitalism can create a plutocracy.

  6. hey yeah his head does kinda look like an acorn

  7. This message Tea Party approved.

  8. Speaking of ignorance….
    The Movie “Creation” (About Charles Darwin)…
    No US distribution and there may not be any…
    USA ! USA ! usa !

  9. This diagram designed by someone who doesn’t know what socialism IS.

  10. I recommend that any American flippantly labeling everything as “communist” and “socialist” spend a year in N. Korea or China living with and talking with those citizens. And if it’s not in your budget to travel, chat it up with any old Russian immigrant who knows what a real czar is like.

    If you still think a little healthcare option (the same crap you’ve been paying for for decades, btw) is going to strip you of your freedoms, then you are a paranoid psychopath my friend. The truthers will welcome you to their inner sanctum now.

  11. as a socialist from the europes i can say i would never vote for a man like obama because he is so extremely not socialist.

  12. Impeach the Nigrah President!

    Only our Lord and Savior, Presiden-Elect Mitt Romney will save us from the moron’s tyranny!!!!!!! FACT!!

  13. Someday.Someday there may be a viable third American political party.Someday.Someday there may be a rational,sensible candidate in that party.Someday.I hope to fuck that someday is soon.I`m sick of this polarizing bullshit.

  14. ha ha! Oh my god this is fucking stupid. I wonder if the creator was purposefully being a dipshit or if instead they were actually this fucking blind, full-on retarded.

  15. For eight fucking years, we have a provably fascistic, arrogant, incompetent, ignorant, theocratic-tending, free-spending presidency… for some reason its only now that these teabaggers, oh and FoxNews, “wake up”. For 8 years, protesting the president was unpatriotic and harmful to the nation in a time of war. Now, it’s fine. In fact, its your duty *crying Beck tears now*.

    You’ve got to assume this diagram is a troll/Poe and move on; that’s the only possible explanation.

  16. They are against Obama’s deficit. Bush’s deficit is fine. And they don’t want the government interfering in our personal lives. Unless you are a homosexual who wants to get married, or a woman who wants an abortion.

  17. bitter, sad, conservative, republicans…

    why do republicans hate freedom and democracy?
    can someone answer me this?

    is it because they are owned wholly or in part by corporations? is it because they are brainwashed by religious kooks? is it because they are bigots? is it because they are repressed and living a lie? why? why? why?

Leave a Comment

NOTE - You can use these HTML tags and attributes:

