Sponsored By

Sign in to follow this  
JDoors

Another One Jumps Under The Bus

Recommended Posts

White House green jobs adviser Van Jones resigned in the middle of the Labor Day weekend following persistent controversy over his past remarks and associations. ...

He earlier issued back-to-back apologies -- first, for calling Republicans "a**holes" during a videotaped address earlier in the year, and second for signing a petition in 2004 supporting the "9/11 truther" movement, which believes the Bush administration may have been involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

Jones was a self-described "communist" during the 1990s and previously worked with a group dedicated to Marxist and Leninist philosophies. His comments, even in recent years, were often racially charged. He's blamed "white polluters and white environmentalists" for "steering poison" to minority communities.

In 2005, he drew a distinction between white and black youths involved in shooting incidents by referencing the 1999 Columbine High School massacre. "You've never seen a Columbine done by a black child. Never," Jones said. "They always say, 'We can't believe it happened here. We can't believe it's these suburban white kids.' It's only them!" he said. "Now, a black kid might shoot another black kid. He's not going to shoot up the whole school." ...

"On the eve of historic fights for health care and clean energy, opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me. They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide," Jones said. ...

:wacko:

He's on tape calling Republicans a-holes, he signed that petition (his reps claim he didn't read it thoroughly), "self-described" as a Communist, worked with a Marxist/Leninist organization, makes bigoted statements (though, he has a point), then, in an act of self-denial, claims people are telling "lies and distortions" to smear him.

Nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Our leader sure can pick'em.... He's the king of Czar-dom...

Leader???? More dictator than leader. Do as he says and don't do what his appointees do.

Edited by sethook

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is so different with Van Jones calling Republicans a$$holes or Darth Cheney telling a Democrat Senator to go f^(% himself? Smear tactics included saying that Van Jones was a Black Panther even though they disbanded when he was still in grade school. As for the czar term for appointees, Nixon first used it and it was later used by many Republicans. Obama doesn't use the czar term. It is used by scared Republicans to describe his appointees. They still attempt to call him a socialist and Nazi which is false. The only ones who attempted to remove our rights were of the Bush Jr. regime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only ones who attempted to remove our rights were of the Bush Jr. regime.

Yep. President GW Bush pretty-much stomped all over your civil liberties during his 8 long years in office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yep. President GW Bush pretty-much stomped all over your civil liberties during his 8 long years in office.

Not as much as usual. At least we didn't have concentration camps this time.

(Reason #721 for the US to avoid wars: not having concentration camps represents a marked improvement in wartime domestic policy.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"The president should suspend any future appointment of so called czars while the administration and the Congress carefully examines the background and qualifications of the more than 30 individuals who've been appointed to these czar positions," said Pence, speaking to reporters. "And the Congress ought to initiate a thorough inquiry into the constitutionality of this practice which has spanned Republican and Democrat administrations." link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"And the Congress ought to initiate a thorough inquiry into the constitutionality of this practice which has spanned Republican and Democrat administrations."

Congress investigating questions of constitutionality. Sneer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is so different with Van Jones calling Republicans a$$holes or Darth Cheney telling a Democrat Senator to go f^(% himself? ...

I don't see any difference in THAT regard. But Cheney didn't sign a "truther" petition, never was a Communist, never worked in a Marxist/Lenninist organization, never claimed suburban white kids are crazier than urban black kids, and never claimed the swearing thing is nothin' but a lie, part of a larger smear campaign (and if anyone COULD justify claiming he was being smeared, it would be Cheney). But yeah, they both used swear words so there's no difference between the two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do people always say what's the difference "Bush, Cheney, Clinton.... did it". If it was wrong before it's just as wrong now, or has something changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But Cheney didn't sign a "truther" petition
THAT would be ironic! :wacko:
never was a Communist, never worked in a Marxist/Lenninist organization
He did work for Haliburton though..
never claimed suburban white kids are crazier than urban black kids
He did, however, insult the entire state of West Virginia.
and never claimed the swearing thing is nothin' but a lie
And yet... there are other, much larger things that Cheney says are "nothing but lies".
Yep. President GW Bush pretty-much stomped all over your civil liberties during his 8 long years in office.

Not as much as usual. At least we didn't have concentration camps this time.

(Reason #721 for the US to avoid wars: not having concentration camps represents a marked improvement in wartime domestic policy.)

We did have Guantanamo bay.

Oh... and The Patriot Act.

Why do people always say what's the difference "Bush, Cheney, Clinton.... did it". If it was wrong before it's just as wrong now, or has something changed.
I think the point--however futile or ill portrayed--is to show that neither side of the aisle is decent. A poor defense, yes, but it may cause people to get out of the "liberals are anti-american commies!" or "conservatives are war-mongering nut jobs!" mentalities. Doubtful to succeed, because people aren't very good (or willing) to critique their own ideas or notions--especially when under fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We did have Guantanamo bay.

Gitmo is a bit small for a concentration camp. It's about the size of county jail.

Regardless, the improvement was that we didn't have concentration camps for Americans.

Oh... and The Patriot Act.

The Sedition Act of 1918 made disloyal speech a federal crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"The president should suspend any future appointment of so called czars while the administration and the Congress carefully examines the background and qualifications of the more than 30 individuals who've been appointed to these czar positions," said Pence, speaking to reporters. "And the Congress ought to initiate a thorough inquiry into the constitutionality of this practice which has spanned Republican and Democrat administrations." link

"President Obama to Appoint Ron Bloom Manufacturing Czar.

President Obama will announce that he's appointing Ron Bloom his Senior Counselor for Manufacturing Policy."

Edited by sultan_emerr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they'll be a little more careful with their appointments, but the initial problems won't soon go away; Inexperience on the National level (not knowing what would be unacceptable red flags for the American people), arrogance (f* the American people, we make the decisions), and their radical leftist past (some of the associations and flaws that are shocking to the American people are run-of-the-mill stuff to them -- or are even considered to be assets ).

None of which should come as a shock to anyone as this was all revealed during the campaign, at least, to anyone who was listening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think they'll be a little more careful with their appointments, but the initial problems won't soon go away; Inexperience on the National level (not knowing what would be unacceptable red flags for the American people), arrogance (f* the American people, we make the decisions), and their radical leftist past (some of the associations and flaws that are shocking to the American people are run-of-the-mill stuff to them -- or are even considered to be assets ).

I'm really tired of the American people being shocked by the mundane. Obama being a secret Muslim Trotskyist terrorist from Kenya who's planning to personally murder every senior citizen in the country would be shocking.0 Obama having leftists in his administration is not shocking. It's not even interesting. He's a farking Democrat. Who'd you expect to him to appoint, Pat Buchanan?1

0 And hilarious. I'd consider voting for him in 2012.

1 Throw in Buchanan and Obama's got my vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
arrogance (f* the American people, we make the decisions)
It's funny, I thought the same thing during the previous administration. Guess that just shows how much a democrat-or-republican bias can control your perspective.

Just curious, though, what choices or rights in your life have been taken away since this administration came to office?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm really tired of the American people being shocked by the mundane. ...

Not sure I agree that many of the "revelations" we've seen (and I mean throughout political history) could be considered "mundane." People did get WAY upset over a mundane pep-talk to kids though (however, I can manage to understand what they were upset about -- they didn't think it WOULD be a mundane speech).

It's funny, I thought the same thing during the previous administration. Guess that just shows how much a democrat-or-republican bias can control your perspective. ...

It's getting so bad both parties are often objecting to their own party's policies. Bush had plenty of conservative detractors, Obama has plenty of liberals detractors. There's certainly some level of bias that causes one side or the other to defend the indefensible, but there are also those who'll point out that, hey, that's just plain indefensible!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What about this guy.........

Cass Sunstein -- who isn't really a Czar, he actually has to pass Senate confirmation.

The most dangerous Czar

Oh Glenn Beck...... :rolleyes:

So many of those were taken out of context.

Quote #1 should actually read:

"We ought to ban hunting, I suggest, if there isn't a purpose other than sport and fun."

Quote #2 should actually read:

The Court said that the Second Amendment must be interpreted in light of the constitutional goal of recognizing and permitting militias. "With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made.

It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view." The Court believed this point was enough to establish the legitimacy of the law in question. There was no evidence that sawed-off shotguns have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." Hence the Court could not "say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

If this pronouncement is taken seriously, then almost all gun control legislation is constitutionally fine. And if the Court is right, then fundamentalism does not justify the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms. Those who contend that it does are arguing politics, not law.

Of course, the Supreme Court could have been wrong in the Miller case.

Quote #3, I'll admit that is a little strange... :huh:

Quote #4:

"[T]here should be extensive regulation of the use of animals in entertainment, in scientific experiments, and in agriculture." ... I see no problem with this what-so-ever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote #3, I'll admit that is a little strange... :huh:

I don't think it's that strange. He isn't proposing changing the animal cruelty laws or granting animals additional rights, and while it would be unusual to give everyone standing to sue it wouldn't be unprecedented: I believe California allows third parties to sue employers for violations of state labor laws.

"[T]here should be extensive regulation of the use of animals in entertainment, in scientific experiments, and in agriculture." ... I see no problem with this what-so-ever

Yeah, I don't understand why they chose that quote. We already regulate the use animals in everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this