That was why I offered counter point instead of numbers.  Polls aside, simply applying common sense and logic, this regime is pure fail.  It's czar and feathers.

And FYI, Obama didn't have a 9/11 to deal with.  Bush was in lose/lose situation.  He did the best he could.  He kept this country damn safe.

And how long are the left going to use that "inherited economy" excuse?  Is that why he keeps spending completely insane amounts of money?  Pfft.  Nice logic.

By big R I mean Republican, and I said "mostly".

Here we have John Conyers saying "reading bills is hard".  Well yes John but thats why you get paid the big bucks. 

Sadly, most congresspeople do not read the bills they vote for (ie Patriot Act), they just take others words for it.

Anyhow, they have had MONTHS to read and digest the bill proposals now, and anyone who can't do that is incompetant regardless of party affiliation.

Now you're getting the point.

I read your long post.  I saw very little "common sense" and "logic".  Mostly I saw opinions and fear. I could address it point by point but it is hard to find coherent points to address.   You decided to paraphrase Obama saying "the war on terror is over"  but he has never ever said anything close to that.  You presented the president as wanting increased troop levels in Afghanistan as some sort of contradiction, however he has been saying that the war in Afghanistan needed more troops since the Democratic primaries.

Oh scary Czars! Czars are bad! Surely Nixon, Reagan, Bush 1, Bush 2 did not use Czars.

The fact that even one poll says 42% should be cause for concern to any current admin partisan.

Hell even Bob Beckell is starting to have doubts.

btw.. i don't see on record that any past admin had THIRTY THREE Czars.

No I understand the point.  Incompetance is there on every level of society.  Some are incompetant some aren't.  It does not mean we should abolish government programs or not try to establish new ones for fear of incompetance.

There are many many lawmakers  who are great, who are very competant, who are very intelligent.   It is up to us to weed out the bad ones through votes and political action.

No the fact that one poll says 42% and the rest are completely different should be the opposite of cause of concern, it is cause for dismissal.  It is an OUTLIER.   I do not know how much statistical knowledge you have, but if you do not understand why it should be dismissed then please take the time to understand statistical analysis.

33 Czars = bad?  33 Czars = scary?  Please explain why 10 is good, or 20 is good, but once you have 33 you've crossed into super scary Beck land.

This is typical, but I was expecting more than this.  Becoming defensive by going offensive.  You try to belittle a point to make yours seem valid.  That doesn't fly.

You may want to do a little research.  Obama rode his candidacy on the back of ending the war.

So by your logic, the big R's screwed everything up.  Since they employed 2, 5, 10 czars, let's just multiply that out so we have 30+ now.  Since it did NOT work before.  Makes sense to me.  Sounds like the same logic he is using on the economy.

No one ever said even 1 czar was acceptable.  But 33 is yes, downright scary.

No, what I want from you is some reason that Czars are bad.  Please explain to me why.

As to point number 2, you might want to do a little research, Obama rode his candidacy on the back of ending the war in IRAQ.  He has always always always spoke for a returned focus to the war on Afghanistan.  I followed the election very closely and at every opportunity he said there needs to be a withdrawl from Iraq and a focus on Afghanistan.

No, the big R's did not screw everything up.  Nowhere did I say any number of Czars are bad.  I had a question mark, it was a question.   I see nothing wrong with Czars, I am asking you why they are bad.

I am patiently waiting for your reasoned explanation as to why Czars are inherently bad.

By the way, here is a link to the FIRST debate with McCain during the election with Obama saying "we need more troops in Afghanistan". 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2jYsLwcEIY

Care to take back your comment about me needing to do a little research?

There is nothing good about putting people in places of power (potential places or otherwise) within the government when they are not elected officials.  These people were not voted in and as such, do not necessarily convey the mindset of the people who elected them in.

Another aside on the polls.  The 42% poll was conducted by Zogby, a person who gives his polls a notorious Republican slant. For reference, he had McCain leading Obama on election day 48-47%.  He was only off by.. Oh.. About 10%.

Especially 33 people in places of power, not elected and that don't answer to the people.

wrong in so many ways.

Far as I know, no one else has even used.. 10.. let alone 33.

If you don't see something is odd about that... sorry dude.

Anyway.. by next week, there will be at least.. 1 less.   You can believe whatever polls u want to...knock urself out.