Cabinet members, Supreme court judges, every single non-elected government employee from secretaries to janitors to the non-elected military members are all inherently bad?

Sorry, you will have to do better than that.  Unless you think we should elect every member of the cabinet, every general in the army, every Senator assistant, and not just Czars.   Did you complain when Bush created new cabinet positions?  Did you complain when Bush made hundreds and hundreds of non-elected political appointments?  Or has your ire been reserved for Obama?

Bush had 35 official Czar jobs and appointed 45 Czars over the term of his presidency.  Where was your fear back then?

All depends where you get your figures from..

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,531363,00.html

Reagan had 2.
Bush 41 had 1.
Clinton had 9.
Bush 43 had 12.

but for the sake of arguement.. How many of Bush’s appointees were members of radical revolutionary groups?

Self avowed communist's?

How many of them had published books on eugenics?

How many of them have expressed an interest in denying medical care to people based on age?

These people were able to be appointed because unlike Bush's czars which were all vetted by Congress and subjected to Senate confirmation, Obama's were not.

I can't WAIT to see what excuse this admin uses to throw Van Jones under the bus.

I am sorry.  Did you have any discussion with me (or Styler) "back then?"  What are you basing your assumption on that I did not have issues with this "back then?"

You are really falling into the Republican vs. Democrat thing pretty hard.  You should probably stop that.  Justifying something that is wrong with something else that is wrong does seems to be the liberal mindset, though.  It's a justification that 3rd graders use when trying to get out of trouble.  But this is a problem with the government OVERALL.  This is not elephant or donkey.  Obama is simply magnifying everything in a very short amount of time.

You are seeing my ire with Obama because he is the president and he is digging a US-sized hole and pulling the wool over America's eyes and telling them to walk straight ahead.

I guess it does depend where you get your figures from.  I looked up Czars on wikipedia and checked some of the sources for Bush's Czars appointments, the ones I checked were legitimate.

Your source is Fox news, in an interview with Greta Van Sustren quoting UNCITED statistics on the fly, with no mention where she gets the numbers.  I could only find 1 Reagan Czar btw.  

It is really strange that you accept without question her unsupported numbers because it fits your worldview.

Quite a few.  They are called Neo-Conservatives.

No evil commie pinkos that I know of were appointed by Bush. 

As I am unfamiliar with the book on eugenics claim or the denying medical care by age claim, can you provide me with some context?

From what I have read about Van Jones, I am not a fan.  Mostly because of the 9/11 truther thing.  I could care less if he does not survive much longer as a political appointee.

I was not justifying, I was asking a question.  Are you against every single government appointment from the cabinet down to the military?  Do you believe that in order for something to not be inherently bad in government is must be elected?  Because that seems to be your position.

A subtle insult! That is something 1st graders do when their positions cannot be explained.

First off, military personnel are not traditional government officials.  And isn't it obvious that even elected government officials can be bad as well?  But compound that with those bad government officials appointing people into places of power is simply foolish.  To not acknowledge this is a problem is a rather naive point of view.

See there.  You did it again.  Going on the defensive by being offensive is not justification of a point.

Of course elected/unelected officials can be bad, it is not really the point.  You seem to be missing what I am asking you entirely.  What I am trying to do is find out what your position is (which you have not explained beyond "all unelected government officials are inherently bad").  What I am trying to do is find out, do you really believe that?  Should every single government offical be elected?  Ambassadors? Clerks? Cabinet members?  Or would elections for all these officials be unwieldy, inefficient and ultimately untenable?

You see, if you stick to your guns and say all unelected positions are bad, then you must justify an alternative (which would be an absolute logistical nightmare).  If you disagree with your statement that all government appointees are inherently bad, then please expand and justify it further.  Why are some good and some bad.  Cabinet members ok? Ambassadors ok?  Czars EVIL! Why?

Uhhh, if I'm not mistaken you're the one who implied I was a 3rd grader...  But yeah, I'm the one going on the offensive.  For the record that particular statment was not a justification of anything, I think you are confused.

Done with this for a while.

Pick up becks book... Arguing with idiots.

Typical, when faced with justifying your position you choose to drop an insult and leave.

Supakewreu

Ive been justifying my position for as long as I can remember... people like you, unlike some others that have responded intelligently.. just want to argue for arguements sake, all I have seen from you is two wrongs make a right.

Some days, I just have better things to do wit my time... like work.

I'll continue to respond if and when It's justified not because someone thinks their entitled to an answer.

Oh and Karen, FEMA has always been a running joke, no matter the admin. No arguement there

Maybe you should have quoted my entire paragraph for clarification, then, instead of taking one sentence.

I did not imply you were a 3rd grader.  I stated that justifying something that is wrong with something else that is wrong is a liberal mindset that 3rd graders also employ.  There's a difference.  3rd graders are 8-9 years old.  You are apparently an adult.

As for your first comment...  All I can say is the blind are leading the blind.  When people start getting elected that I can trust, I will trust the people they put in place if they feel the need to.  Until then, you can have your "Car czar" because that is something that this country obviously really needs.

Some people simply fail to remember what this country was founded on.  And I believe the only way that this country will be able to get out of this downward spiral is by getting back to those basics.  Meanwhile, I guess I should get to work spending 18 million dollars building tunnels under a highway for toads to cross without getting squished.

Never ever ever did I justify anything with something else that is wrong.  You are missing the point and do not see this.  If I did not communicate it clearly I apologize.

Never ever did I say Ambassadors are appointed and are wrong, so that justifies Czars.  What I have always been trying to get at is the extent of YOUR belief that ALL appointees that are unelected are inherently bad.  This has nothing to do with my beliefs and you have avoided answering or justifying your original statement.

It seems to me that now your position is that you will only trust unelected officials if you trust the elected ones.  So all government is bad unless you trust them.  Basically it boils down to a subjective "trust" which has no real structure and thus cannot be discussed.

1.  Just because this country was founded on something, does not mean the genesis of our country was a Eutopia.  We have the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, and if the country slides out of favor with that document, then it needs to be taken up with the Supreme Court.  Anything that doesn't fall under the Bill of Rights and the Constitution that has changed from the country's beginning, is called "progress" -- it's what people who learn do -- they progress.  This is the fundamental difference between conservatives and liberals -- conservatives want things to stay the same and liberals want to progress.

2.  Your belief is just that -- your personal belief.  There are no studies, proof, or data to measure whether what you belief is, indeed, fact.  Beliefs are not facts.

3.  If that tunnel over the highway means hoards of toads that get squished on the highway on a regular basis and cause numerous fatal accidents, accident which cause damage to the highway, and outlandish law suits, then maybe that 18 million dollars isn't all that much of a waste.