Communist + White House =/= United States

[thegreekdog]

Ah sod it- Obama wants communists in the white house in order to overthrow the democratically elected government of the US. Van Jones, an affiliate of the Communist party, is in control of the Green Jobs Department and, as it's Czar, seeks a Communist revolution because he hates democracy. Nothing he says can be believed.

I admit it all. I was wrong.

I think you're confusing me with hapsmo or someone who actually believes that Van Jones will have some affect on the president's policies with respect to our form of government. You see, I don't believe these things, so this debate method you've employed has no effect.

What I do believe, however, is that you have engaged in debate with me over whether someone who is a communist revolutionary would or would not be a good government servant in a democracy. Your posts contained veiled and unveiled insults to my intelligence, presumably because you group me together with conservatives who you have deemed to be ignorant. So, if you want to continue to debate whether having a communist revolutionary in service to a democractic government is a good thing, I can do that. If you want to weasel out, that's fine too. As a third alternative, you can completely ignore me and concentrate on "debating" those people who have no idea what they are talking about, who quote jargon from conservative websites. Finally, you could admit that I have a point and we can move on from there. But please don't stoop to the level of debate that you did in the quote above; it's ridiculous.

[Symmetry]

Ah sod it- Obama wants communists in the white house in order to overthrow the democratically elected government of the US. Van Jones, an affiliate of the Communist party, is in control of the Green Jobs Department and, as it's Czar, seeks a Communist revolution because he hates democracy. Nothing he says can be believed.

I admit it all. I was wrong.

I think you're confusing me with hapsmo or someone who actually believes that Van Jones will have some affect on the president's policies with respect to our form of government. You see, I don't believe these things, so this debate method you've employed has no effect.

What I do believe, however, is that you have engaged in debate with me over whether someone who is a communist revolutionary would or would not be a good government servant in a democracy. Your posts contained veiled and unveiled insults to my intelligence, presumably because you group me together with conservatives who you have deemed to be ignorant. So, if you want to continue to debate whether having a communist revolutionary in service to a democractic government is a good thing, I can do that. If you want to weasel out, that's fine too. As a third alternative, you can completely ignore me and concentrate on "debating" those people who have no idea what they are talking about, who quote jargon from conservative websites. Finally, you could admit that I have a point and we can move on from there. But please don't stoop to the level of debate that you did in the quote above; it's ridiculous.

Weasel out, methinks.
Toodle-pip.

[Frigidus]

How is this any different from lobbyists who pay of senators or presidents and force them to do their bidding? At least with czars there is transparency is who exactly is making the decisions and is involved in the process.

Just thought I'd point out this post again, as it's pretty much how I feel.

Also, can we cut the referring to people who disagree with us as haters of freedom? It makes me retch.

[bedub1]

I find it scary that people are okay with a Communist in the white house providing advice to the president and running the "Green Jobs" department....You guys are out of your mind. And he is a 911 truther...that just means he's a complete wack-job. God help us all.

Erm, he's pretty much stated that he doesn't believe in either of those things. Also, he's not running the "Green Jobs department." Finally, as far as I can tell, there is no "Green Jobs department".

Well...you should open your eyes then...because every single article I read mentions the "Green Jobs and New Economy Subcommittee" etc...

And if he doesn't believe either of those things...then why did he say he was a Communist, why did he sign the petition....was he lying then...or is he lying now....I bet he was telling the truth then and lying now that he is under fire because people are in a rage at a Communist advising the president. Just go ahead and close your eyes to the truth.

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/09 ... _jones.php
http://blogs.reuters.com/frontrow/2009/ ... -a-pickle/
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthru ... ml?showall

[Titanic]

Thanks Frigidus, amazing how they all managed to miss that out when they posted and answered so many other things.

[PLAYER57832]

Good point. We should definitely discriminate against people who think differently than us. Idealism must be quashed under the gray skies of conformity.
That = USA.

Even if Van Jones is a follower of a nefarious and indescribably evil school of economic thought (I wouldn't call him a Communist, I think he refers to himself as communist. Small c makes a difference) he wants what he thinks is best for the USA, actually. Having read his book (one of the better reads, he is a very clear writer) he actually comes across as a great patriot. Who's saying that the polluters fouling our skies and waters want what's best for us?

I think if this person was, in fact, a member of an organization which wanted a revolution in the United States, this person is, at best, not someone who wants what's best for the United States as it is currently constituted. A revolution necessitates that the currently elected democratic government be overthrown in favor of some other type of government. So, while it may be comical and fun to bash the bashers of Van Jones, or while it may seem to be enlightening to have no problem with him, if Van Jones has some convictions along with his belief, he is certainly not someone who should be involved in the U.S. government.

If it were violant overthrow, you might have a point. However, in a sense we have a revolution every 2 years.. through elections and I see nothing wrong with that.

[stahrgazer]

http://bellsouthpwp.net/m/e/mespouppet/ ... sCons2.JPG

[danfrank]

Sometimes the obvious just needs to be stated, When a news agency is reporting on a specific person such as ME the facts that are discussed have to be true and accurate for legal reasons. Now its up to the people to decide if the statement they are conveying is an opinion or is it truth. I`m releasing a new book this week it`s called Watching and reading news for dummies.

[joecoolfrog]

It really is hilarious that some of you are wetting yourself with fear because your President has some left wing advisors, never mind that for years your economy, foreign policy and enviromental strategy ( the future ) has been driven by a bunch of cash obsessed oil men

[b.k. barunt]

I was just thinking the same thing. Kinda like the middle class whining about welfare to the poor when welfare to the rich eclipses that by billions.


Honibaz

[PLAYER57832]

I was just thinking the same thing. Kinda like the middle class whining about welfare to the poor when welfare to the rich eclipses that by billions.


Honibaz

[Snorri1234]

Revolution means and implies change

Yes, that's correct. So, someone who is a communist who wants revolution wants a change from what exactly? Further, in history, what has a communist revolution accomplished? What is the end result of a successful communist revolution? Democracy? No? Well, then, I think I've made my point.

Uhr....not to insult you or anything but I doubt you have ever heard any communist or really know how many different schools of communist thought there are.

It is perfectly possible to have a democratic communist revolution. In fact, most communists think that that is the best way to introduce communism if democracy is present. They do not believe democracy should be replaced in favor of communism, they see them existing together.

So, even if this guy we're talking about is actually a communist there is no reason to assume he wants to overthrow the government.

I don't think Van Jones is a communist looking to overthrow democracy simply because it's not in his own best interests to be a communist looking to overthrow democracy. If he said, "Yes, I'm a communist and I want to overthrow democracy," I expect that President Obama would force him to resign.

Are you saying he's hiding the truth or something?

[GabonX]

xxx xx xxxx xxxxx

[Snorri1234]

When I asked him to show some facts proving that the quotes in the piece were untrue he couldn't provide a single one. That's how they operate here, strike, but it's no surprise.

Someone couldn't provide facts to prove something was untrue...

Wow. Our legal system is founded on the need for the accuser to prove facts TO be true, before someone is guilty, not the need to disprove an untruth.

Wow, I didn't know that claiming a news source to be biased was the same thing as being on trial in a court of law!

Anyways - if you're going to pretend like something isn't true simply because the source is biased then you need to show just how the quotations are being misapplied. You need to be able to prove what parts of the story are incorrect, etc. etc. In that case, nobody was ever able to show what specifically was wrong with the story. Simply saying it's not true because it's from MSNBC, Fox News, or CNN doesn't cut it.

The thing that was wrong with the story was that it was completely made up.

[GabonX]

What was made up? If it was about the guy being a self declared communist, no it was not.

Communism and democracy are not necessarily mutually exclusive however communism and liberty are.

[Snorri1234]

What was made up? If it was about the guy being a self declared communist, no it was not.

Talking bout the Hilary-terrorists connection.

[GabonX]

Probably made up..

Obama's the one with terrorist connections.

So I guess by the transitive property of Obama, Hillary is connected...

[Frigidus]

Probably made up..

Obama's the one with terrorist connections.

So I guess by the transitive property of Obama, Hillary is connected...

It's like Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, except if you're the one that gets connected you hate America.

[PLAYER57832]

Probably made up..

Obama's the one with terrorist connections.

So I guess by the transitive property of Obama, Hillary is connected...

Obama has terrorist connections?


OH, I think I see...

Obama gets advice from someone who might have belonged to a marxist-leaning organization, therefore not only does that automatically mean the advisor is communist, it also automatically makes Obama a communist.

Yes, you are right, let's return to McCarthism, the days of blacklists for anyone who dares even listen to anything that might be communistic. Let's forget that people can have diverse ideas and that we might learn from people even if we don't fully agree with their stances on everything.

Let's just bury our heads in the sand, plug our ears, and listen only to people who absolutely 100% agree with us.

[beezer]

What was made up? If it was about the guy being a self declared communist, no it was not.

Talking bout the Hilary-terrorists connection.

What proof do you have that it was made up?

[danfrank]

Probably made up..

Obama's the one with terrorist connections.

So I guess by the transitive property of Obama, Hillary is connected...

Obama has terrorist connections?


OH, I think I see...

Obama gets advice from someone who might have belonged to a marxist-leaning organization, therefore not only does that automatically mean the advisor is communist, it also automatically makes Obama a communist.

Yes, you are right, let's return to McCarthism, the days of blacklists for anyone who dares even listen to anything that might be communistic. Let's forget that people can have diverse ideas and that we might learn from people even if we don't fully agree with their stances on everything.

Let's just bury our heads in the sand, plug our ears, and listen only to people who absolutely 100% agree with us.

And yet your the one rolling your eyes....

[GabonX]

Probably made up..

Obama's the one with terrorist connections.

So I guess by the transitive property of Obama, Hillary is connected...

Obama has terrorist connections?

Well there is a certain William Ayers..a radical communist terrorist who Obama was acquainted with for many years.

No, we didn't forget about him, we've just been sidetracked by all the other outrageous things this administration has had a hand in.

Also, if memory serves me, this self avowed communist was also a member of the Weather Underground, which means that Obama has AT LEAST one domestic terrorist working in his administration.

OH, I think I see...

Obama gets advice from someone who might have belonged to a marxist-leaning organization, therefore not only does that automatically mean the advisor is communist, it also automatically makes Obama a communist.

Virtually everything Obama has done so far indicates that he has a radical agenda which seeks to further government control. We don't need to look at the people he surrounds himself with, his actions speak loud enough.

In less than a year he has attributed more than a trillion dollars to bailouts, which under his authority amount to a government take over of the banking system as well as the auto industry. He is now actively attempting to have the federal government enter and dominate an industry which comprises (I believe it's around) 15% of our total economy.

No, we don't need to look at who he surrounds himself with to know what he stands for (these people only accentuate the point). His true colors shine brightly enough.

Yes, you are right, let's return to McCarthism, the days of blacklists for anyone who dares even listen to anything that might be communistic. Let's forget that people can have diverse ideas and that we might learn from people even if we don't fully agree with their stances on everything.

Let's just bury our heads in the sand, plug our ears, and listen only to people who absolutely 100% agree with us.

These days McCarthyism is applied to people who attend Tea parties and you are black listed for having contrary views to the President.

There is a difference between a minor disagreement and the kinds of things which Obama's administration is trying to institute. Would you accept it if a President had a self avowed Nazi as part of his administration? With our history, having a communist is as bad as having a Nazi if not worse as Nazis pose no threat.

Our principles and way of life is completely incompatible with such schools of thought. There can be no compromise between our way of life and theirs as history has shown that such compromise is only temporary. We know that the intention is to make changes bit by bit so as to slowly recreate the fundamental structure of society and philosophy in the United States.

We will never accept this and if you really want to go about instituting these kinds of changes you will quite literally have to kill us.

[Symmetry]

Probably made up..

Obama's the one with terrorist connections.

So I guess by the transitive property of Obama, Hillary is connected...

Obama has terrorist connections?

Well there is a certain William Ayers..a radical communist terrorist who Obama was acquainted with for many years.

No, we didn't forget about him, we've just been sidetracked by all the other outrageous things this administration has had a hand in.

Also, if memory serves me, this self avowed communist was also a member of the Weather Underground, which means that Obama has AT LEAST one domestic terrorist working in his administration.

OH, I think I see...

Obama gets advice from someone who might have belonged to a marxist-leaning organization, therefore not only does that automatically mean the advisor is communist, it also automatically makes Obama a communist.

Virtually everything Obama has done so far indicates that he has a radical agenda which seeks to further government control. We don't need to look at the people he surrounds himself with, his actions speak loud enough.

In less than a year he has attributed more than a trillion dollars to bailouts, which under his authority amount to a government take over of the banking system as well as the auto industry. He is now actively attempting to have the federal government enter and dominate an industry which comprises (I believe it's around) 15% of our total economy.

No, we don't need to look at who he surrounds himself with to know what he stands for (these people only accentuate the point). His true colors shine brightly enough.

Yes, you are right, let's return to McCarthism, the days of blacklists for anyone who dares even listen to anything that might be communistic. Let's forget that people can have diverse ideas and that we might learn from people even if we don't fully agree with their stances on everything.

Let's just bury our heads in the sand, plug our ears, and listen only to people who absolutely 100% agree with us.

These days McCarthyism is applied to people who attend Tea parties and you are black listed for having contrary views to the President.

There is a difference between a minor disagreement and the kinds of things which Obama's administration is trying to institute. Would you accept it if a President had a self avowed Nazi as part of his administration? With our history, having a communist is as bad as having a Nazi if not worse as Nazis pose no threat.

Our principles and way of life is completely incompatible with such schools of thought. There can be no compromise between our way of life and theirs as history has shown that such compromise is only temporary. We know that the intention is to make changes bit by bit so as to slowly recreate the fundamental structure of society and philosophy in the United States.

We will never accept this and if you really want to go about instituting these kinds of changes you will quite literally have to kill us.

Is Bill Ayers a member of the Obama administration now too? Must have missed that one.

[jay_a2j]

"The people will get the government they deserve" - some famous guy

I'm not so sure how true that statement is. Certainly true in some cases, but how can you deserve Bush and instantly later deserve Obama? Oh, and surely that dusn't work for totalitarian and dictatorship states either.

Because the people allow it to happen. As far as Bush/Obama go, one set the table for the other.

[Night Strike]

VICTORY!!!!!!!!!!!! Score another win for liberty and another loss for radicalism.

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama's adviser Van Jones has resigned amid controversy over past inflammatory statements, the White House said early Sunday.

Van Jones, an administration official specializing in environmentally friendly "green jobs," has been linked to efforts suggesting a government role in the Sept. 11 terror attacks and to derogatory comments about Republicans.

Jones issued an apology on Thursday. When asked the next day whether Obama still had confidence in him, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said only that Jones "continues to work in the administration."

The matter surfaced after news reports of a derogatory comment Jones made in the past about Republicans, and separately, of Jones's name appearing on a petition connected to the events surrounding 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon.

That 2004 petition had asked for congressional hearings and other investigations into whether high-level government officers had allowed the attacks to occur.

Jones flatly said in his statement that he did not agree with the petition's stand and that "it certainly does not reflect my views, now or ever."

As for his other comments he made before joining Obama's team, Jones said: "If I have offended anyone with statements I made in the past, I apologize."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/09/06/obama-green-jobs-adviser-van-jones-resigns-amid-controversy/