Van Jones Exit Isn't Right-Wing Win, It's an Obama Surrender

The decision of Van Jones to resign as President Obama's "green jobs" czar is not a victory for Republicans who griped about the White House environmental aide's willingness to call them out on their extreme partisanship.

Nor was it a victory for right-wingnuts like Glenn Beck -- who waged a bitter campaign against Jones, highlighting his history of activism on behalf of environmental justice, racial reconciliation, global solidarity and an inquiry into events leading up to the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

It was an unnecessary and unwise surrender by an Obama administration there is neither ready nor willing to fight "those who spin lies for profit" -- as National Association for the Advancement of Colored People president Ben Jealous described those who smeared Jones.

Jones made a gracious exit from his key position in an administration that was unwilling to stand up for him, issuing a Labor Day weekend statement that said: "On the eve of historic fights for health care and clean energy, opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me," Jones said in his resignation statement. "They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide."

Jones said he had been "inundated with calls from across the political spectrum urging me to stay and fight." The NAACP and other groups had initiated campaigns to keep Jones in his position as White House Special Advisor for Green Jobs.

Few doubt that Jones would have stayed on, if the president and his aides had been willing to defend the ablest advocate for green jobs.

Nor is there doubt among those of us who have known and worked with this remarkable man over the years that, when Jones signed a petition or spoke at a rally, he did not always agree with every detail of what was being said – anymore than a Republican congressman who speaks at a teabagger rally agrees with the signs in the crowd that call for acts of violence or a conservative talk-show host agrees with callers who claim President Obama was not born in the United States.

Those heirs to Joe McCarthy who have been waging a campaign to discredit and dismiss high-ranking African-American appointees of the Obama administration have highlighted the fact that Jones' name appeared on a petition calling for an aggressive inquiry into whether Bush-Cheney administration aides failed to take necessary steps to prevent the 9/11 attacks.

While some who circulated that petition may have believed the worst about members of the former administration, Jones clearly and unequivocally stated the more extreme position "certainly does not reflect my views, now or ever."

Jones wanted a more serious inquiry, as did many mainstream Democrats and Republicans who worried about the constrained and ineffectual approach of the 9/11 Commission and a Bush-friendly Congress. As the NAACP's Jealous says, "I have known Van Jones for more than 15 years. In that time he, as is characteristic of great public servants, has continuously grown and increased his capacity for improving the condition of humanity. Throughout, he has been guided by a powerful sense of patriotism and love for all."

Jones' Republican critics knew this.

His Fox TV attackers were fully aware that this was an ugly smear campaign designed not so much to embarrass Jones as to undermine the administration.

They just wanted to get rid of Jones, who has for many years been among the savviest and most effective advocates for green jobs -- and whose appointment to the green jobs" position was one of the strongest signals that the Obama administration was serious about both environmental protection and job creation.

President Obama and his aides let the right spin a fantasy about a man who led the highly-regarded Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and was recently listed as one of Time magazine's 100 most influential player's of 2009.

In so doing, they allowed Glenn Beck to define the administration.

This won't make the Obama presidency stronger; nor will it position the president to work more effectively with Congress on issues such as healthcare reform -- let alone "green jobs" initiatives.

The right now knows they can make this administration blink. And they will keep poking and prodding White House aides and appointees until Obama and his inner circle push back.

That's how Washington works.

Republican strategists and the echo chamber in the media understand this.

Unfortunately, the president and his aides do not.

Comments (304)

1. Wow JN, You are one out of touch individual.

   Posted by fram at 09/06/2009 @ 10:00am

2. Now you try to whitewash a petition that was very clear in its intent of claiming 9-11 was an inside job. People who supported this belong in the same bag as the Obama "birthers" (sic). The real concern was that Jones was a self-avowed communist revolutionary who had no business anywhere near the White House. All one had to do was listen to, and see some of, his recent speeches (this year) to get the gist of his aims (thank-you Glen Beck). No wonder the administration was unwilling to fight for this. And - Mr Nichols, when normal people hear the canned code phrases of the left - "environmental justice, racial reconciliation, global solidarity" they know exactly who they are dealing with - people who intend just the opposite. I think it is time we require people who are placed in positions of power in an administration, like the "czars", that they must be vetted and approved by Congress.

   Posted by pyeatte at 09/06/2009 @ 10:12am

3. From PowerLine, HAPPY's mouth piece:

   Van Jones goes down swinging

   September 6, 2009 Posted by Scott at 6:46 AM

   ...green jobs commissar Van Jones resigned...His departure is unfortunate. A self-avowed Communist and transparent hater of the United States...he was a perfect symbol...of the Obama administration.

   Of this there should be little doubt. Jones was not a one-off nutjob...Jones was also a perfect symbol of the dereliction of the mainstream media in the Age of Obama...Byron York's tabulation of words devoted to the recent revelations about Jones in the mainstream media as of Friday and Saturday provided a notable marker.

   Jones claimed to have been the victim of a "vicious smear campaign." Why cave in to such a campaign? ...Jones was of course "smeared" with his own words, which proved indeed to be vicious, voluminous and damning.

   Jones said he had received encouragement from across the political spectrum to "stay and fight." I doubt it, but I will concede that I had meant to urge him to stick around and defend himself.

   Somehow I don't think the option was available to him. Jones would like us to believe his resignation was voluntary...

   The Associated Press...mentions only two of the numerous controversies...and is coy about both of them:

   The matter surfaced after news reports of a derogatory comment Jones made in the past about Republicans, and separately, of Jones' name appearing on a petition connected to the events surrounding the Sept. 11, 2001...

   The AP story includes no hint of Jones's radical (i.e., Communist) past or his anti-American ideology. Here, too, the villains seem to be the Republicans: "Despite his apologies, Republicans demanded Jones quit." Evidently Barack Obama is powerless to ignore demands from those pesky Republicans.

   Posted by Happy at 09/06/2009 @ 10:40am

4. Firing VJ is the first politically correct call by Magic in quite some time.....bad for us HAPPIES....takes away the fun!

   I had hoped HusseinO would deal with this like he did w/Asshole Prof. Gates and raise racial divisiveness a few notches......darn! Who says dumb affirmative-action dog can't learn new tricks!

   Posted by Happy at 09/06/2009 @ 10:44am

5. John Nichols is an apologist whackadoo.

   He doesn't even know who or what he's apologizing for.

   By the way...if you sign a statement you better know what the heck is written in it. (What are you?! A child?!) I have even less sympathy for you if you are a "lawyer" who is supposedly trained to read documents and fine print by instinct.

   "..been among the savviest and most effective advocates for green jobs .." --funny, because the man can't even define what constitutes a "green job".

   "Jones clearly and unequivocally said the more extreme position "certainly does not reflect my views, now or ever."" --this is just irresponsible journalism on Nichols' part because Jones did NOT "clearly and unequivocally" outline what "extreme" position he did or did not agree with. This is Writing101: it's best not to use 'clearly' when there is in fact doubt. You just took part of Jones' statement and put it out of context to try and make him sound less extremist. Why can't you just be honest? Many people on the left thought 9/11 may have been an inside job and, on top of wanting an investigation, they harbored feelings of great animosity towards the W admnistration and wanted to indict him personally.

   You want to defend your boy, be my guest. But be intellectually honest about it.

   Posted by sunnyblack at 09/06/2009 @ 10:51am

6. Sunday, May 11, 2008 Scientific Poll: 84% Reject Official 9/11 Story

   Scientific Poll: 84% Reject Official 9/11 Story Only 16% now believe official fable according to New York Times/CBS News poll Truth Movement has the huge majority of opinion How will the Bush Cabal react? Steve Watson & Alex Jones / Prisonplanet.com October 14 2006 A monumental new scientific opinion poll has emerged which declares that only 16% of people in America now believe the official government explanation of the September 11th 2001 terror attacks. According to the new New York Times/CBS News poll, only 16% of Americans think the government is telling the truth about 9/11 and the intelligence prior to the attacks: "Do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying? Telling the truth 16% Hiding something 53% Mostly lying 28% Not sure 3%" The 84% figure mirrors other recent polls on the same issue. A Canadian Poll put the figure at 85%. A CNN poll had the figure at 89%. Over 80% supported the stance of Charlie Sheen when he went public with his opinions on 9/11 as an inside job. A recent CNN poll found that the percentage of Americans who blame the Bush administration for the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington rose from almost a third to almost half over the past four years. This latest poll shows that that figure has again risen exponentially and now stands at well over three quarters of the population.

   Excerpt of:

   Source: The New York Times / CBS News Methodology: Telephone interviews with 983 American adults, conducted from Oct. 5 to Oct. 8, 2006. Margin of error is 4 per cent.

   Posted by OneVote at 09/06/2009 @ 11:07am

7. Thank you for this article. And to the others here posting their McCarthy-ite comments, you merely show how ignorant and ill-educated most Americans are. It is also obvious you know nothing about the man, Van Jones. This is another sad moment, not only for the Democrats, but for the nation. And Obama will simply lose more respect form his base that elected him. Smart move, Mr. President. We actually thought we had a leader with a little courage to stand up to the insanity of the ignorant and backward.

   Posted by gdwymer at 09/06/2009 @ 11:12am

8. From JN, two sentences in the same piece:

   'The decision of Van Jones to resign as President Obama's "green jobs" czar is not a victory for Republicans'

   'President Obama and his aides let the right win a big one.'

   Which is it?

   C'mon. John. I know it's Sunday and you have better things to do then to defend this wackjob. If I were you, I'd remove this entire column. Beck and others revealed the true Mr. Jones. He WAS vetted. That's the scary thing. Where are these people coming from anyway? Sorry John but this article will lose you serious credibility if you don't delete it. Just some friendly advice.

   Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/06/2009 @ 11:17am

9. You know, I think we have a new nickname for our bumbling president: SurrenderMan.

   The guy is backing down on everything. Today his spin man Axelrod (perfect name, that.... right out of Mad magazine) has been on tv saying Our Leader is fine with dropping the public healthcare option.

   The O administration is done, finished, with this weaselly capitulation. The right-wingers (the minority, I might add) realize all they have to do is whine, scream, send out that looney rep from Minnesota, and bow down to the Limbaugh god and the Obama team will run away like cowards.

   Posted by Citizen54 at 09/06/2009 @ 11:40am

10. I don't believe they didn't know about his background. Just google him or go to wikipedia! On the contrary, they knew everything about him, even his radical-Marxist STORM association, and thought, "Great guy! He's really one of us". They really didn't see anything except goodness in his entire history, couldn't imagine that anyone would think differently! They were surprised that there was controversy. As far as I can tell, Jones doesn't actually create jobs, he "community organizes" others who may try to create jobs. But, it doesn't matter now that he's gone.

    Posted by sntauri at 09/06/2009 @ 11:45am

11. NICHOLS: "....Glenn Beck – who waged a bitter campaign against Jones, highlighting his history of activism on behalf of environmental justice, racial reconciliation, global solidarity and an inquiry into events leading up to the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon."

    Mr. Nichols, perhaps you have forgotten what true, professional journalists are supposed to do. Forgive my ignorance, but surely edumycating the public about high-Czars should be one `responsibility', no?

    Isn't that what Gateway Pundit (who `dug' out the 9/11 petition) and Glenn Beck were doing by "highlighting his history" and what a flock of tingled-legs Legacy journos didn't do before The Election on Dear Leader?

    Someone gave you the advice to circular file this blog post.....give it some Laboring thoughts before MASK shows up....LOL!

    Posted by Happy at 09/06/2009 @ 12:09pm

12. When has the Obama admin not caved?

    They're honest pols, as once bought, they stay bought.

    We were scammed, yet again.

    Posted by sloper at 09/06/2009 @ 1:32pm

13. Any other Special Advisors that are avowed Communists that Valerie Jarrett and the President were so pleased to get on board, need prepare to go back to the dark hole they came from.

    You are either disingenuouss are living in some universe 180 degree out of sync as is Katrina at The Nation expect the administration coming to the aide of Van Jones. Van Jones no more than you can survive in open daylight.

    I wish President Obama had come on out on the limb with Van Jones. I wish he confess his true agenda of Executive Branch takeover of government and our lives.

    Cass Sunstein and Dr. Holder need get ready for similar sunlight shining down upon them.

    So go ahead make the case for benefitss of Van Jones or a Marki Lloyd at the FCC as a Hugo Chavez supporter.

    A socialists a.k.a. "progressive agenda" is not going to succeed.

    Posted by FUBO at 09/06/2009 @ 1:49pm

14. What a big disappointment Barry turns out to be. The man doesn't seem to understand that while he is trying to negotiate with people who have no interest in finding any solutions to today's problems he is slowly but surely alienating the very people who elected him. Unfortunately, at the rate he is going, he will be out of office by 2012.

    Posted by timetochange at 09/06/2009 @ 1:51pm

15. Judging from the nazi wackos who post regularly on this forum against any form of decency or compromise for the working man, the little guy, the unselfish, the poor, the moral and the sane, it's easy to see what Van Jones was up against.

    Maybe if the Christian Wrong didn't have so much innocent blood on it's hands, wasn't so eager to kill any non-Christian, bleed them slowly, starve them, poison them or just shoot them outright, someone would take these self-worshiping racist di&^%*gs seriously. Personally, I can't wait until Christ returns and recycles these losers. Not that they would ever expect that, since they're so busy fabricating Christ's message and re-translating 'scripture' to say what they want it to say. And it looks like they even have the President in their filthy little claws.

    Posted by DejaVu at 09/06/2009 @ 1:58pm

16. There are only two things that need to be said about Van Jones and the now-infamous 9-11 conspiracy petition.

    (1) The petition Van Jones signed in 2004 called for "immediate public attention to unanswered questions that suggest that people within the current administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war."

    There's no accusation there that conservatives haven't made against FDR for "allowing Pearl Harbor to happen."

    (2) Van Jones himself apologized for signing the petition, saying the following (as reported by David Roberts at Grist.org):

    "In recent days some in the news media have reported on past statements I made before I joined the administration--some of which were made years ago. If I have offended anyone with statements I made in the past, I apologize. As for the petition that was circulated today, I do not agree with this statement and it certainly does not reflect my views now or ever.

    My work at the Council on Environmental Quality is entirely focused on one goal: building clean energy incentives which create 21st century jobs that improve energy efficiency and use renewable resources."

    Posted by JakobFabian at 09/06/2009 @ 2:06pm

17. There IS something more to be said about President Obama's cowardice on this issue. It really is cowardice. The movement against Van Jones doesn't represent anywhere near a majority of US-Americans. Even if it did, it wouldn't include the mentally brightest or the morally most virtuous among us. It wouldn't even have included the most tenacious. After Van Jones's installment in office, the movement would have quickly given up and found some other petty issue to obsess about.

    John Nichols is correct only in one regard: Although Glenn Beck won, he won by default. He didn't win because the supporters of Van Jones failed to raise their voices. He won because President Obama refused to listen to them.

    Nonetheless, I do not believe that Obama is generally a cowardly man. I do believe that his calculated decisions about whom to listen to and whom to ignore are constrained by the plutocratic structure of our elections. In clear text, Obama can easily afford to offend legions of campaign contributors who send only $10 each, but he cannot afford to offend many who send $100s of dollars each.

    I cannot provide any other explanation for the manifest cowardice in this and numerous other decisions that Democrats make. Whenever they stand up for the poor and against the rich, they lose money. So they don't dare to do it often. This accounts for the Democrats' fabled spinelessness.

    Conversely, whenever the Republicans stand up for the rich against the poor, they are rewarded. This accounts for their fabled loyalty to their principles, which unfortunately impresses many voters who do not share these principles.

    So let me say again: Part of the solution to our predicament is serious campaign finance reform. I propose a limit of $10 per contributor per candidate.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 09/06/2009 @ 2:20pm

18. What scares the plutocratic establishment so much about Van Jones? It's not 9-11. It's two other little words: Green Jobs.

    This two-syllable slogan threatens everybody who would like us to continue burning fossil fuels as wastefully as possible, because the more of them we consume, the more they stand to profit. The Green Jobs slogan represents the very real promise that investing in green technological improvements will actually create jobs, so that we can balance our budget and move toward a healthier biosphere at the same time.

    I don't know of anybody who can make this point better than Van Jones. This is why I am so disappointed that he was not given the post for which he is so excellently qualified. However, the truth will out, and it will find its tribune some day. In the meantime, Van Jones will go back to community organizing. The next time he enters the public eye, you can bet he'll be even stronger.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 09/06/2009 @ 2:40pm

19. What scares the plutocratic establishment so much about Van Jones? It's not 9-11. It's two other little words: Green Jobs.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 09/06/2009 @ 2:40pm

    Excellent `analysis'....about on par with the seasoned Nichols.

    You Lefties are suffering....but I guess that makes for HAPPY libs.....suffering is the goal!

    Posted by Happy at 09/06/2009 @ 2:44pm

20. Wow, Nation! Where do all the wingnuts come from? The Crazies are posting here as though it were Fox or one of their ridiculous conspiracy sites.

    Major bummer, but hey - that's what the Republicans made of American civil discourse.

    I regret Jones' decision to leave. He is a good man, as evidenced by the screwball posters' vitriol, if nothing else. Would this country truly have a few really committed socialists. We'd be way better off than the current third world nation the Bushies left behind (and the nutcases are defending).

    Posted by peterjkraus at 09/06/2009 @ 2:48pm

21. You stupid LIBZ will never learn....Mr. Commie Jones IS the asshole and the 1st of many who will be brought down by REAL americans who love their country and dont want to be ruled by czars and a bunch of COMMIE radicals....

    By the way, Katie Van Dumb Evil looked HORRIBLE on TV today....Honey you need to brush your hair and put on makeup before you get on TV like that .....made me want to PUKE!!!!

    Posted by libzRfreaks2 at 09/06/2009 @ 2:50pm

22. Sorry but Mr. Jones did himself in by his clear documented record. It wasn't distorted nor fabricated, it was researched and presented for all to see. Of course, this was not done by the MSM for they will not investigate anything left wing. Someday their malfeasance in investigative reporting will bite them hard.

    Posted by pyeatte at 09/06/2009 @ 3:20pm

23. He was never vetted and if he were vetted the American public would let Obama and cabal know loud and clear what they would want to do with this guy...I love the fact that ZERO networks even mentioned the Jones storygiven his statements and back ground. Imagine what the papers would say if he was a GOPer...Look at how much time soent on Cheny gun accident..or Michael Jackson funeral..What a shame and sham the media has become.

    This guy is a communist and a nut and should have never been let near the WH or the levers of power, hell, even Obama couldn't pass a background check to visit the WH....and it is because of the people he grew up around and sat in church with for 20 years...

    Jones was lucky to get a visitors pass in any other WH including dem past presidents.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 09/06/2009 @ 3:24pm

24. Jones is an example of why Obamas polls numbers are collapsing...

    The public is begining to wake up to what it is they elected...and are realising this isn't the change they were sold....and not the hope they saw in the vision sold. This is nothing more than a take over of all things in life by govt as in Europe...and private sector sidelined... and that is distinctly not what America is or ever was about...private sector was dominate in life andf govt second at best...

    Private small companies and entrepeneurs created majority of economic activity and behavors...not govt hack union jobs created for, by and of the govt. People who admire Stalin, Chavez, Che, Mao, Castro have no business in our seats of power...

    We got big time buyers remorse and it will get worse.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 09/06/2009 @ 3:32pm

25. Who picked him, and who approved him? It is beyond belief that the selection/approval process could have thought that this guy was somehow going to beloved by a wide swath of Americans. Can you imagine that they would have selected Angela Davis as head of the education department? And they would have been surprised that anyone would have a problem with it? Would it have been so hard to find someone who knows about sustainable economic development that also didn't happen to create STORM?

    Posted by sntauri at 09/06/2009 @ 3:38pm

26. Obama has surrendered every time push came to shove. It is very clear that he is a politician in the true Clinton mold -- not a person moved by principle, but one moved solely by expedience – whatever it is that will win him the most of whatever it is he seeks to win.

    The catch is, now that the singular goal of the presidency is won, the goals are too many, the people needing pleasing to diverse.

    From before his inauguration, Obama had thrown progressives and true liberals under the bus.

    Health care, Middle East policy, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, openness, change, the middle-class and poorer Americans.... At what point has he clearly sacrificed conservative votes he never had anyway to fulfill promises he made during his campaign.

    Whom won't he throw under the bus? The Israel lobby, Wall Street billionaires and his major campaign contributors, massive health insurers and big Pharma.

    Money. That's what Obama won't sacrifice.

    Posted by hsansom at 09/06/2009 @ 4:29pm

27. I wish I understood why my fellow leftists think everyone agrees with us. They don't. You pick your fights. I think Mr. Jones should have stayed and that the right wing is insane, but what I think is not the point here. First, according to Howard Dean, Mr. Jones didn't know what he was signing when he signed the 9/11 petition--that worries me more than whether he actually believed what the petition said. Second, Mr. Jones said in his letter that he believes in causes and didn't want to hurt this cause by becoming the focus of attention. So, if you claim the administration didn't stand by him and he should have stayed, he must be lying in his letter, right? If you say, no, he simply was being politic, then he's no better than the president you condemn for being a politician. In other words, you twist yourselves into a pretzel.

    Try doing something for your own cause. You want health care reform? Get to work. Call or email your friends in states with doubtful senators to try to buck them up. You don't need to tell Obama where he stands. You need to make sure others stand where you want them to so that he can pass the kind of reform you--we--want.

    Posted by Michael Green at 09/06/2009 @ 4:37pm

28. You need to make sure others stand where you want them to so that he can pass the kind of reform you--we--want.

    Posted by Michael Green at 09/06/2009 @ 4:37pm

    Er........those Kool-aid you've been chugging has turned really Green....the most unhealthy sort of green...like what came out Linda Blair's mouth (flying 360) in The Exorcist.

    Posted by Happy at 09/06/2009 @ 5:10pm

29. Posted by Happy at 09/06/2009 @ 10:40am

    "The AP story includes no hint of Jones's radical (i.e., Communist) past or his anti-American ideology. Here, too, the villains seem to be the Republicans: "Despite his apologies, Republicans demanded Jones quit." Evidently Barack Obama is powerless to ignore demands from those pesky Republicans."

    HAPPY, in order for the fantasy world the leftists have constructed for themselves to continue standing, the True Believers must indoctrinate themselves into two contradictory facts at the same time: a) that the substance of everything damaging that has been disclosed regarding Van Jones background is a lie, and b) that through some lack of intestinal fortitude on his part, Obama was forced by lies to fire a completely innocent man. Both of these premises are, of course, ludicrous - the problem with the disclosures about Van Jones are that they are 100 percent truthful, and if anything, Obama's integrity led him to hold onto this guy way TOO long. Nevertheless, without this kind of self-deception, the leftist fantasy world falls apart - God forbid that should happen!

    Posted by pontificus at 09/06/2009 @ 5:48pm

30. "When Walker plotted these trends, and considered demographics among many other factors, what he found was "chilling." If fundamental reforms are not begun now, he concluded, the United States will experience a financial and political collapse comparable to the fall of Rome.

    In a presentation to the National Press Foundation, January 17, 2008, Mr. Walker brought forth the following facts and projections:

    1. From 1966 to 2006, the percentage of federal funds spent on Medicare rose from 1% to 19%. This trend will grow exponentially as millions of "baby boomers" enter the entitlement pool.

    2. For the same period, spending for mandated government commitments rose from 26% to 53% of the total budget. The budget is increasingly out of the control of government officials.

    3. As of 2007, Medicare is running in arrears. In 2017 Social Security will be in deficit. By the year 2040, Medicare and Social Security alone will be running annual deficits of nearly 900 billion dollars.

    4. Medicare spending from now until 2032 will be 235% of economic growth. By 2040, Medicare will be spending about 10% of the nation's Gross Domestic Product annually, and the annual deficits of the United States will total some 20% of the total Gross Domestic Product.

    The bottom line is this: mandated fiscal entitlements, projected into the future, are over 52,000 billion dollars. That will equal 90% of all household wealth in the U.S., and will place a burden of over 450 thousand dollars on every household in the land. This is almost ten times the present median household income level.

    He stresses that this coming financial meltdown is known by everyone in Washington--but no one wants to acknowledge it. "

    http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5631

    Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/06/2009 @ 6:05pm

31. Miscellaneous comments:

    1. gdwymer says: "........Thank you for this article. And to the others here posting their McCarthy-ite comments, ........"

    Comment: Gdwymer, I am not lib but I am more up to speed on your (lib) terminology than you are! You say McCarthy-ite? Gdwymer, it is not called McCarthyism anymore. It is swiftboating! How genuine of a lib are you? Did you know this before you didn't know this and thus it was not seared, seared into your memory? Have you only been a lib for 4 months? Brush up on your latest lib buzz words before you go to some lib event and say "Gdwymer, reporting for duty!"

    2. Citizen54 complains that: "........The O administration is done, finished, with this weaselly capitulation. The right-wingers (the minority, I might add) realize all they have to do is whine, scream, send out that looney rep from Minnesota, and bow down to the Limbaugh god and the Obama team will run away like cowards......"

    Comment: Gee that would be great if that really were the case!

    3. timetochange says (about Obama): "......Unfortunately, at the rate he is going, he will be out of office by 2012....."

    Comment: Point of correction, timetochange, but it will not be 2012 but January 20, 2013 after the noon hour that you and others will be saying, "Lookie here, we have a new President in office, you betcha!" and presidential vacations won't be to Texas as was the case in the previous administration, or Martha's Vineyard, as in the current one, but they will be trips up to Alaska for moose hunting!

    Posted by sjchermak at 09/06/2009 @ 6:10pm

32. Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/06/2009 @ 6:05pm

    Obviously, mr. righwingnutcase, you are ill-educated in the tenets of modern economics, as elucidated by Vice President Biden when he says that in order to keep from going bankrupt, we must spend more money! Or Rep. Pete Stark (D-Delusional), who says 'the more money we borrow, the richer we are (of course, you need an advanced degree in economics to understand this)!

    Posted by pontificus at 09/06/2009 @ 6:16pm

33. pontificus, you mean like bush told us to go shopping, thats the ticket, yes siree.

    Posted by Denise29 at 09/06/2009 @ 6:39pm

34. Posted by Denise29 at 09/06/2009 @ 6:39pm

    "pontificus, you mean like bush told us to go shopping, thats the ticket, yes siree."

    As usual, the Bush hatred of a lefty devotee trumps anything approaching common sense. Congratulations on your successful brainwashing young lady!

    Posted by pontificus at 09/06/2009 @ 7:27pm

35. Thanks for the compliment pointy.

    Posted by Denise29 at 09/06/2009 @ 7:46pm

36. My bad and my apology pontificus.

    Posted by Denise29 at 09/06/2009 @ 7:49pm

37. Still thanks for the compliment (young lady) I'm certainly not young and after my last three posts not much of a lady either.....sigh.

    Posted by Denise29 at 09/06/2009 @ 7:52pm

38. Not everyone gets a break for Labor Day weekend. The paid regressive trolls are out in force offering their twin contributions of insult and bile, destruction and obstruction. Perhaps they could follow their own oft-given advice--if you don't like it here in the U.S. you can leave.

    Posted by ocham at 09/06/2009 @ 8:45pm

39. "Truthers" are every bit as wrong as "birthers" and "deathers". Let's remember how the whole "-ers" thing got started. The same truther movement has seriously poisoned the Green Party, and that's a real shame. I don't know anything about Van Jones in particular, but he left himself wide open for political destruction by signing that petition...whether or not he was personally coming from a more sensible position of wanting to see an honest accounting of 9-11 mistakes (the petition is clear about its intended claim, just go to 911truth.org, its right there).

    The progressive left cannot win by emulating the tactics of the radical right. It should instead be defined by the "pearl"-ers (those who support Physical Evidence And Reasoned Logic). Let the conspiracy theorists (like Glenn Beck) infest the right-wing and take down THAT political faction. We on the progressive left risk seeing a lot of otherwise good people go down if we don't inoculate ourselves against such stupidity.

    Posted by mdetrano at 09/06/2009 @ 8:56pm

40. Oh me oh my, do you mean to tell me that BO is a wealthy and powerful politician, and not the lovable goofball we all saw during his highly calculated candid moments on the campaign trail?

    I never would have guessed.

    The problem with the jomammas and pontis is that they are so completely without the intellectual honesty to analyze the people they've openly and unabashedly supported in the past.

    And are there any thinking people on the planet that tale Glenn beck seriously? I've never heard or seen the d-bag before articles like this. Stop paying him so much attention for gods sake.

    Posted by TexasFlood at 09/06/2009 @ 9:48pm

41. "The problem with the jomammas and pontis is that they are so completely without the intellectual honesty to analyze the people they've openly and unabashedly supported in the past"

    you mean, 'without the intellect,' nevermind the 'honesty.'

    again, obama caved on this one. van jones is hardly a "radical." he's black, well-educated, and an environmentalist. in the minds of today's utterly anti-intellectual republican, that means "radical."

    Posted by darladoon at 09/06/2009 @ 10:04pm

42. You mean Darlaloon that ponti isn't for HC, or the common good? Hmm interesting, and here I was feeling sorry for him for having besmirched his rep and in the process besmirching mine, I learn every day no? Where do you stand ponti? I know where I stand, and I know the insurance companys are only interested in the bottom line, that is where they stand. We need gavt intervention now.

    Posted by Denise29 at 09/06/2009 @ 10:16pm

43. Thats govt intervention.

    Posted by Denise29 at 09/06/2009 @ 10:18pm

44. 9-11 was a Bush WH conspiracy so joined the group and signed the petition; Republicans are all A-holes; White kids are responsible for all the school shootings; (you can see it all on you tube)

    In a June 2008 speech to the National Conference for Media Reform, Jones blasted a proposed prison in Memphis that he compared to a "huge slave ship on dry land."

    "You don't have to call somebody the n-word if you can call them a felon," Jones said in the speech, which can be seen on YouTube . "The fight against this new Jim Crow, this punishment industry, where for-profit prison companies are now being traded on the stock exchange ... that struggle is being met as it was 40 years ago."

    Writing about his participation in the R. King riots; Jones continued, "Yes, the Great Revolutionary Moment had at long last come. And the time, clearly, was ours! So we stole stuff. Y'know, stole stuff. Radios, tennis shoes. Well, not everybody, of course."

    "But the incident deepened my disaffection with the system and accelerated my political radicalization," he wrote.

    Van Jones is a self-avowed communist;

    ----------------

    Yea, you must be right! Those evil Fox people are using lies and distortions concerning this "vetted" highly qualified patriotic black American! (That is what the leftist think about TRUTH everyday!)

    Posted by BigPasture at 09/06/2009 @ 10:41pm

45. STORM initially included anarchists, communists and revolutionary nationalists, but after some struggle the anarchists left and STORM become more communist-oriented. The group considered Mao Zedong as their ideological leader and as an atheist organization expressed deep dislike of religion. One of the group's founders was former Obama appointee Anthony "Van" Jones.

    And progressives just assumed that the vast majority of Americans would think it just wonderful that this person was working in the White House? And would completely trust him with $30B in funding to dole out? And were surprised when there was negative reaction when the facts came out?

    Posted by sntauri at 09/06/2009 @ 10:57pm

46. why can't communists work in the government? is there a rule against that?

    does communist automatically equal "threat"?

    so van jones basically worked on behalf of extremely poor, desperate people of color, living in environmentally-ravaged communities, to improve their lives, instead of making millions as a yale-educated lawyer. and (amazingly) this guy is considered a problem?

    only a republican would have a problem with the term "environmental justice". which is a really quite simple term. it basically means: improving the lives of communities ravaged by toxic waste.

    this is nothing more than glenn beck and fox settling a score. period.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/06/2009 @ 11:14pm

47. "STORM initially included anarchists, communists and revolutionary nationalists, but after some struggle the anarchists left and STORM become more communist-oriented. The group considered Mao Zedong as their ideological leader and as an atheist organization expressed deep dislike of religion. One of the group's founders was former Obama appointee Anthony "Van" Jones."

    yeah, and? serious, sntauri. what's your f*cking point? is there something illegal about being an atheist or a communist?

    god, you're such an idiot.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/06/2009 @ 11:16pm

48. "expressed their deep dislike of religion"

    oh no!!

    Posted by darladoon at 09/06/2009 @ 11:16pm

49. Posted by Denise29 at 09/06/2009 @ 10:16pm

    "Where do you stand ponti? I know where I stand, and I know the insurance companys are only interested in the bottom line, that is where they stand. We need gavt intervention now."

    So, for you, 'government good, insurance companies bad'...is that like 'four legs good, two legs bad'? Just wondering...

    Posted by pontificus at 09/06/2009 @ 11:24pm

50. Posted by ocham at 09/06/2009 @ 8:45pm

    "The paid regressive trolls are out in force offering their twin contributions of insult and bile, destruction and obstruction. Perhaps they could follow their own oft-given advice--if you don't like it here in the U.S. you can leave."

    Yep, you got us nailed - all those nasty people who disagree with you - we're all in the pay of Karl Rove. Man, nothing gets by you, does it?

    Posted by pontificus at 09/06/2009 @ 11:28pm

51. Well Little and Auri I just want to ask you two upstanding Republicans which country we have the largest trade deficit with?Which "respected large American corporations"are doing the most business with Communist China? Why if you drove by a train yard in any part of the United States, you would see stacks of Chinese containers gracing the landscape. You know what,I think we should ask the Vice President of Procurement for the Walmart Corporation to resign. I would believe Walmart is spending much more money on Chinese merchandise than $30 billion. Is that O.K., I mean the Chinese have more influence on policy than Van Jones does. You two could not find the truth if you had an army of investigators working for you. If you two were leading the charge for Van's scalp there would be a lot of froth to clean up off the floor.

    Posted by whatizz at 09/06/2009 @ 11:32pm

52. .....van jones is hardly a "radical."

    Posted by darladoon at 09/06/2009 @ 10:04pm

    Most prominent blacks POPULAR with the Left, with blacks in general....are by speeches & behavior, are "radicals". That's how they make their names & fit in with the children reared by The Great Society.

    As Beck said, Jones is just the tip of the ice berg and he was recommended by no less than "For-the-first-Time-Proud-of-America" you-know-who!

    Posted by Happy at 09/06/2009 @ 11:46pm

53. gee, i guess warren buffet (one of obama's top economic advisors) is also "radical" simply because he associates with obama....

    and anyone (!) who quotes glenn beck, to support a claim.......

    Posted by darladoon at 09/06/2009 @ 11:50pm

54. Posted by whatizz at 09/06/2009 @ 11:32pm

    I know this just rocks that fantasy world you live in, but it is leftist trade, labor, and environmental policy that has shipped American manufacturing industry and jobs overseas.

    Posted by pontificus at 09/06/2009 @ 11:51pm

55. Droopy,you are a laughable fool. I am glad you nlisten to Glenny that explains a lot to me.Where do I send the latest Curious George book for you to read to Glenny. I want to warn you though it could be as long as 20 pages and the letters are real Big.

    Posted by whatizz at 09/06/2009 @ 11:51pm

56. "I know this just rocks that fantasy world you live in, but it is leftist trade, labor, and environmental policy that has shipped American manufacturing industry and jobs overseas."

    (quote of the day)

    Posted by darladoon at 09/06/2009 @ 11:58pm

57. how moronic does one have to get to make the claim that leftist policies shipped jobs overseas?

    Posted by darladoon at 09/06/2009 @ 11:59pm

58. "so van jones basically worked on behalf of extremely poor, desperate people of color, living in environmentally-ravaged communities, to improve their lives, instead of making millions as a yale-educated lawyer. and (amazingly) this guy is considered a problem? only a republican would have a problem with the term "environmental justice". which is a really quite simple term. it basically means: improving the lives of communities ravaged by toxic waste."

    Posted by darladoon at 09/06/2009 @ 11:14pm

    That sounds like quite a resume. So, which communities ravaged by toxic waste did he work on behalf of?

    Posted by twillie at 09/06/2009 @ 11:59pm

59. Posted by darladoon at 09/06/2009 @ 11:16pm

    "serious, sntauri. what's your f*cking point? is there something illegal about being an atheist or a communist?god, you're such an idiot."

    Yeah, what's wrong with you, sntauri? Aren't communists Americans too? Not that Darla's defending communists...well, maybe she is. That doesn't mean she's on their side...unless it does. But so what? Are you anti-Communist or something?

    Posted by pontificus at 09/07/2009 @ 12:00am

60. " I mean the Chinese have more influence on policy than Van Jones does "

    yup

    Posted by darladoon at 09/07/2009 @ 12:00am

61. "Yeah, what's wrong with you, sntauri? Aren't communists Americans too?"

    ponti, can you define communism, and why communist views are a threat to america?

    Posted by darladoon at 09/07/2009 @ 12:01am

62. "So, which communities ravaged by toxic waste did he work on behalf of?"

    numerous. read his biography.

    only in america is someone who works on behalf of poor communities of color considered a threat.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/07/2009 @ 12:03am

63. Posted by darladoon at 09/06/2009 @ 11:59pm

    "how moronic does one have to get to make the claim that leftist policies shipped jobs overseas?"

    Moronic enough to be someone who graduated from college with a degree in Chemical Engineering and Advanced Mathematics, a couple of years after the last US refinery was built and the US chemical industry was moved overseas, primarily due to environmental and labor regulations that made it cost-prohibitive to build those facilities here in the US.

    Posted by pontificus at 09/07/2009 @ 12:04am

64. i guess conservatives would rather van jones have joined a prestigious law firm in manhattan, make millions a year, instead of working on behalf of poor people, and making a fraction of the money...

    Posted by darladoon at 09/07/2009 @ 12:04am

65. "primarily due to environmental and labor regulations that made it cost-prohibitive to build those facilities here in the US"

    "cost prohibitive" = makes it "difficult" for polluters to dump toxic waste wherever they want.

    but, fortunately, they can dump it in china or bangladesh, rather than find ways to.....not pollute.

    because, you see, not polluting is just not profitable.

    this pretty much encapsulates the sheer, breathtaking stupidity of someone who would rather pollute no matter what the cost.

    pesky regulations!

    Posted by darladoon at 09/07/2009 @ 12:07am

66. Posted by darladoon at 09/07/2009 @ 12:01am

    "ponti, can you define communism, and why communist views are a threat to america?"

    Darla, go smoke another joint. You're too fucking stupid to argue with.

    Posted by pontificus at 09/07/2009 @ 12:10am

67. you see, these chemical companies love america so much, that they moved overseas.

    regulations don't make companies move. the owners of these companies make companies move (because they don't really love america, they love money).

    you see, so called "free markets" mean one thing, and one thing only: more money for me, and f*ck everyone else.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/07/2009 @ 12:11am

68. "Darla, go smoke another joint. You're too fucking stupid to argue with."

    pontificus, define communism and why having a single obama staff member w/ supposedly communist views is a threat to america (despite his obvious professional qualifications).

    oh, i'm sorry? you can't do that?

    Posted by darladoon at 09/07/2009 @ 12:12am

69. look, everyone. the supposedly educated pontificus can't even define communism and why having an obama staff member w/ supposedly communist views is a threat to america.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/07/2009 @ 12:13am

70. Posted by darladoon at 09/07/2009 @ 12:07am

    Hey Darla, I've got an idea. Why don't you suggest, like all the other stupid fucking moronic lefties here, that we all pay each other $200,000 per year and live in a pristine wilderness, because that's what the environmental and labor gods demand in the name of basic human rights? Whassa matter, are you against basic human rights? Morons...

    Posted by pontificus at 09/07/2009 @ 12:13am

71. Are the people posting here Nation subscribers? I am beginning to think that the US has gone off it's rails.

    Nation Mag - I think you need to restrict comments to subscribers. The right wing nuts are inundating the blog and newspaper world with their insanity. Look at the comments on wsj.com or even the political boards of tmf.com

    Scary stuff

    Posted by jsergeant at 09/07/2009 @ 12:14am

72. pontificus, again, cannot define communism and why van jones's supposedly communist views are a threat to america.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/07/2009 @ 12:18am

73. Posted by jsergeant at 09/07/2009 @ 12:14am

    You know what's scary, my friend? Americans so indoctrinated in Utopian bullshit that they don't have the common sense they were born with. THAT is what I call scary.

    Posted by pontificus at 09/07/2009 @ 12:19am

74. "You know what's scary, my friend? Americans so indoctrinated in Utopian bullshit that they don't have the common sense they were born with. THAT is what I call scary."

    "common sense" = re-electing george bush, creator of massive deficits, two trillion dollar wars, and torturer par extraordinaire.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/07/2009 @ 12:22am

75. only in america is healthcare too expensive, but two unnecessary foreign wars a good investment.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/07/2009 @ 12:23am

76. Posted by darladoon at 09/07/2009 @ 12:18am

    "pontificus, again, cannot define communism and why van jones's supposedly communist views are a threat to america."

    Darla, the US Constitution is built upon the protection of an individual's right to life, libery, and property. Communists stand in direct opposition to protection of all three. Communism is thus antithetical to the American way of life. I really can't put it to you any more simply. You will ignore it, of course, because you are, basically, ignorant.

    Posted by pontificus at 09/07/2009 @ 12:24am

77. "Utopian bullshit" = a timid president attempting to lower healthcare costs by asking republicans for help.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/07/2009 @ 12:24am

78. "Darla, the US Constitution is built upon the protection of an individual's right to life, libery, and property. Communists stand in direct opposition to protection of all three."

    how does communism stand in direct opposition to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

    AND how does our current capitalist system, as it is currently practised, foster the protection of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

    i think you'll have a much harder time answering the second question.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/07/2009 @ 12:26am

79. talk about "utopian bullshit"!

    pontificus seems to think our current, highly-capitalist system creates happiness!!!!!!

    Posted by darladoon at 09/07/2009 @ 12:27am

80. Posted by jsergeant at 09/07/2009 @ 12:14am

    Well, you know, jsergeant, I think we need to restrict posting here to those people who refrain from 'refuting' other peoples' arguments by simplemindedly saying that such other people are 'insane'. Unfotunately, this leaves you out. Sorry!

    Posted by pontificus at 09/07/2009 @ 12:27am

81. "freedom" in the mind of pontificus =

    the freedom to make as much money as you want, while others starve to death.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/07/2009 @ 12:28am

82. "Well, you know, jsergeant, I think we need to restrict posting here to those people who refrain from 'refuting' other peoples' arguments by simplemindedly saying that such other people are 'insane'."

    this coming from someone who JUST said:

    "Darla, go smoke another joint. You're too fucking stupid to argue with."

    now that we got that cleared away.....

    Posted by darladoon at 09/07/2009 @ 12:29am

83. Posted by darladoon at 09/07/2009 @ 12:27am

    "pontificus seems to think our current, highly-capitalist system creates happiness!!!!!!"

    Darla, what makes you so sure I don't believe in the happiness that your completely theoretical communist fantasy world is certainly destined to bring to all human kind? Don't you think I'm trying to believe hard enough?

    Posted by pontificus at 09/07/2009 @ 12:32am

84. "Darla, what makes you so sure I don't believe in the happiness that your completely theoretical communist fantasy world is certainly destined to bring to all human kind?"

    "communist fantasy world" = electing a conservative democrat to lower healthcare costs, stop torturing, end the wars, and reverse the bush tax cuts.

    how fantastical of me!

    Posted by darladoon at 09/07/2009 @ 12:34am

85. only in the mind of pontificus is capitalism not theoretical........

    only communism is theoretical.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/07/2009 @ 12:35am

86. Posted by darladoon at 09/07/2009 @ 12:35am

    "only in the mind of pontificus is capitalism not theoretical........"

    Well, not only in my mind - also in the real world, where the capitalist USA has created the most successful society in the history of humanity...

    "only communism is theoretical."

    Well, I was speaking of the SUCCESSFUL communism that you speak of, which brings happiness to all humanity - not the communism that has been tried dozens of times and brought nothing but misery, death, and poverty to hundreds of millions of people....

    no, I was speaking of the fantasy communism that exists in your mind....

    Posted by pontificus at 09/07/2009 @ 12:40am

87. "where the capitalist USA has created the most successful society in the history of humanity..."

    nothing more needs to be said. this quote, in and of itself, says all we need to know about this person.

    pontificus, define communism. please, thank you.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/07/2009 @ 12:43am

88. pontificus, is the USA a purely capitalist state?

    yes or no?

    Posted by darladoon at 09/07/2009 @ 12:44am

89. Posted by darladoon at 09/07/2009 @ 12:44am

    "pontificus, is the USA a purely capitalist state?

    yes or no?"

    Let me make sure I understand the question. Do you mean like, in the same sense as 'is Darla purely an idiot', or 'is Darla mostly an idiot, but does she nevertheless retain some modicum or reasoning ability'?

    Posted by pontificus at 09/07/2009 @ 12:50am

90. Posted by darladoon at 09/07/2009 @ 12:43am

    "nothing more needs to be said. this quote, in and of itself, says all we need to know about this person."

    And the fact that you are willing to reject the obvious and well-documented, out of hand, tells me all I need to need to know about you, my dear lady.

    Posted by pontificus at 09/07/2009 @ 12:52am

91. Wow, this thread has really gone over the deep end in terms of how utterly pointless all of the converse here has become.

    Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/07/2009 @ 12:55am

92. Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/07/2009 @ 12:55am

    You can't have been here too long, the conversation here has always been pointless. I've been here for years, in and out, and the meaningless blather from the left has never really changed. With respect to the left wing posters, this place is really only good for entertainment, it's a living ideological museum exhibiting thought processes embalmed sometime before Brooke Farm.

    Posted by pontificus at 09/07/2009 @ 12:59am

93. "numerous. read his biography. only in america is someone who works on behalf of poor communities of color considered a threat." Posted by darladoon at 09/07/2009 @ 12:03am

    I read wiki. No mention there. C'mon. If you know, pass on the info. Name a few of the communities.

    Posted by twillie at 09/07/2009 @ 01:14am

94. DEMOCRATS... We seriously need to run a strong, intelligent, accomplished, progressive Democrat in 2012 in the primary. obama is wrong. He is a coward in all respects and will sell the very people who elected him out every time. republicans have nothing. They are fanatics who have nothing to offer but lies and distortions. Bigots are their number 1 supporters. People with low intelligence and hate in their hearts. Nothing more. No matter how horrible they are, the supporters will always come through. It is the republican way. No crime is too evil for them to prosecute, unless it is a Democrat who did it.

    Posted by Tiger2Lover at 09/07/2009 @ 01:21am

95. When Republicans here say "Anti-American" what they really mean about the accused is that he is 'pro-openness, peace, and democracy.

    In the same line of reasoning:

    When they say "Communist" they really mean "pro-justice" and fair laws.

    When they say "leftist or liberal" they mean a person who is questioning their privileges.

    When they say "ideological museum" they mean modern people like Ted Kennedy who fought for the rights of the workers.

    When they say " only good for entertainment", they might really mean clowns like Bush and Cheney, but no, what they mean is they cannot challenge the arguments of liberals.

    When they say "these people are insane", one could think they are referring to people that like wars and don't have respect for human life, but no, they are talking about the human right advocates.

    When they say "fantasy world", one could think they are referring to Disneyland, but no they are saying that in reality some people don't deserve education, work, and a decent salary.....

    and so, so, so....Why do you guys love this site, are you masochists? Or is it only because you are getting paid to break on liberal blogs and keep them quite disorganized. Go 'enrich' the W.S. because here you will always be defeated.

    Posted by Frank42 at 09/07/2009 @ 01:27am

96. "When they say "these people are insane", one could think they are referring to people that like wars and don't have respect for human life, but no, they are talking about the human right advocates."

    No, they are referring to the "human rights advocates" who openly profess to admire Saddam Hussein, Mullah Omar, Omar al-Bashir, Kim Jong-Il, and other genocidal butchers on a truly epic scale (like, say, George Galloway). As far as human rights go, supporting both these madmen and those ideals is internally contradictory. The Afghan war is saving more Afghan babies EACH YEAR from improved health care than the total number of civilians killed throughout the entire war, so pacifists who oppose it out of a genuine desire to preserve human life suffer from pathological mental delusion and moral confusion (not to mention basic ignorance of the facts of reality), as do the so-called feminists that support the Taliban. The same goes for those who opposed the liberation of Iraq from brutal genocidal tyranny at the hands of a mad butcher who slaughtered 2 million innocent people. If Saddam's divide-and-rule policies, which in fact were re-enacted by insurgents working with the very Baathist secret police who carried them out during his two decade long reign of terror, were prolonged, the consequences of the collapse of his regime would have been inevitable and the violence following it would have been on a far greater scale than what we saw following the actual collapse of Baathist rule in 2003 when Saddam died unless Saddam's sons were able to succeed him successfully. But even if they ruled Iraq for decades, they would only have brutalized Iraq further to ensure an even bloodier implosion unless there was a Saddam 3 to succeed them successfully...

    Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/07/2009 @ 02:02am

97. ...In other words, no serious person would in their right mind argue that those who support the war "don't have respect for human life," as you did, particularly because Saddam was killing 25,000 people every year and starving potentially tens of thousands of people to death on an annual basis through his manipulation of the sanctions regime, and because 20,000 Iraqi children have been saved from improved health care. Because, there was only a choice between an implosion resulting in more deaths than the total number killed throughout the entire war, OR, say, 15 more years of Saddam followed by a few more decades under his sons followed by a few more decades under another Baathist dictator and maybe even possibly another one after that, OR some combination of these two options (i.e., Saddam's sons take over for decades, they die, and then Iraq implodes), OR an invasion. It is obvious that an invasion was the most humane possible option, even ignoring the strategic wisedom of the choice to invade.

    To denounce those favoring the Afghan war as not caring about human life is even MORE egregious, if that is even possible, since it is actually quite easy to prove as a certifiable fact that that war has saved far more lives than it has cost. The stupidity of saying Bush supporters hate "human rights advocates" should be self-evident. But, since you are obviously insulated from reality, let me spell it out for you: Bush liberated 50 million people from 2 of the 3 most repressive regimes on the face of the earth (the other being North Korea). It is also funny to hear that right-wingers disrespect human life from someone who presumably loves abortion (if life doesn't begin at conception, could you pinpoint the exact "moment" in which it does biologically?).

    Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/07/2009 @ 02:20am

98. "When they say " only good for entertainment", they might really mean clowns like Bush and Cheney, but no, what they mean is they cannot challenge the arguments of liberals."

    I'm quite happy to debate their logical fallacies.

    "When Republicans here say "Anti-American" what they really mean about the accused is that he is 'pro-openness, peace, and democracy."

    No, pro-Saddam the Great Saladin is more like it.

    Those who support genocide against Muslims in Sudan, Iraq, Afghanistan, AND Bosnia with vociferous passion but call for cartoons mocking the Islamic prophet to be censored clearly do not REALLY care about "Muslim grievences". In reality, their support for both censorship at home and genocidal dictatorship abroad is best explained as a pathological hatred of democracy. If you wish that free countries whose freedom is ensured only by American power like Israel, Kuwait, and Iraq were oppressed, enslaved, or eliminated, you are not "pro-democracy". If you support censorship or genocide or Saddam Hussein, like Ramesey Clark and George Galloway do, you are opposed to democracy. As such, you probably will dislike the freest democracy in the world (the US), even as you call for a boycott of the freest democracy in the Middle East (Israel) but not, say, Sudan or Saudi Arabia. Protestors who burn American flags are un-American, but they are for peace only rather loosely. So many demagouges supported Saddam's war on Kuwait and Russia's war on Georgia that it is hard to classify them as pro-peace (Galloway is the worst example of this). The irrationality of leftist dogma is astonishing. The worst of it all is that they have the gall to mask their profound hatred of democracy by declaring the 2000 and 2004 elections rigged but the ones in Iran free and fair.

    Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/07/2009 @ 02:38am

99. "When they say "leftist or liberal" they mean a person who is questioning their privileges."

    Don't leftists and liberals casually associate such labels with themselves?

    Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/07/2009 @ 02:42am

100. To pontificus: Why does someone who is so self-aware of his superior intellect that he has to list his degree in Chemical Engineering and Advanced Mathematics for all to admire stoop to the level of someone you call "stupid, moronic, wasted, idiotic and insane" as darladoon, yet does not realize that his arguing with her is futile? If she is as insane as you say, you have to recognize that trying to convince her of your expertise in politics and general knowledge is like tilting at windmills. Could it be you are so self-loathing and have such a deep inferiority complex that you might be crinkling the edges of your own psyche a bit? The fact that you say you've been posting here for years and " the conversation here has always been pointless" should convince you that your own arguments thusly must also be pointless. Perhaps you enjoy the company of lesser minds to make your own mediocre intellect seem more important than you truly portray. Perhaps a change of scenery would do you good.

     Posted by vaguelyinterested at 09/07/2009 @ 03:08am

101. "When they say "these people are insane", one could think they are referring to people that like wars and don't have respect for human life, but no, they are talking about the human right advocates."

     Human rights for whom? Iraqis? Afghans? Cubans? North Koreans? Sudanese? The unborn? Muslim women?

     Liberals DO very much care about human rights for Phillip Garrido, international war criminals, Islamic jihadist anti-semites, AQ terrorists, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, mass murderers, rapists, child molesters, physcopaths, sociopathically deranged criminal lunatic repeated rapists and mass-killers, the criminally insane, scumbags, and evil individuals wherever evil can be found whenever evil can be found unconditionally, but they could not possibly care any less about human rights for EVERYONE ELSE.

     Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/07/2009 @ 03:11am

102. "they are referring to people that like wars and don't have respect for human life,"

     And he, of course, has to imply that any support for any war at any time for any reason (as well as the belief that some things are sometimes worth fighting for) is really nothing more than an actual enjoyment of war as fun entertainment.

     Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/07/2009 @ 03:17am

103. "Van Jones Exit Isn't Right-Wing Win, It's an Obama Surrender"

     If Obama felt pressured enough by the right to surrender, then the right in fact did on this issue win. This statement tries to make a distinction without a difference.

     Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/07/2009 @ 03:19am

104. Posted by darladoon at 09/07/2009 @ 12:44am |

     Give it up, Darla.

     You'll never convince these loons that America is often at her best when farthest from the invisible hand.

     It's like trying to convince them that the earth is actually round.

     The Pugs are opposed to job creation because the only chance they'll ever see daylight again is if Obama fails big-time.

     If character assassination is the best they can manage while scraping at the bottom of a well for purchase (it puts the lotion in the basket), then that's what they'll use .

     Think of them as the political equivalent of an ill-tempered and rabid badger; anything goes.

     Amusing that the very commie Chinee, who make all the crap they browse through at Wal-Mart, have rolled out their stimulus with a vengeance and are pursuing the idea of renewables with well-nigh teutonic vigor.

     Posted by snowball777 at 09/07/2009 @ 05:28am

105. Posted by pontificus at 09/07/2009 @ 12:04am |

     Hmm, much better to have thousands of residents of Ohio dead than people in Bhopal et, Mr. Carbide?

     Posted by snowball777 at 09/07/2009 @ 05:34am

106. Posted by pontificus at 09/07/2009 @ 12:13am |

     "Why don't you suggest, like all the other stupid fucking moronic lefties here, that we all pay each other $200,000 per year and live in a pristine wilderness, because that's what the environmental and labor gods demand in the name of basic human rights?"

     No, but more people making the mean income of $66k would be great...as would renewable use of said wilderness, which ain't as pristine as she used to be.

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGmVCABMRRQ

     Posted by snowball777 at 09/07/2009 @ 05:41am

107. It is not surprising that the dismissal of a jerk from an influential post, who believed that the Bush administration deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, has The Nation, groaning and in mourning.

     This guy, like so many other empty suits, found that in the absence of real skills and talents he could make living off of his color, and as an ideologue.

     "Jones used his Ella Baker Center for Human Rights to found Freedom Fighter Music, the label WarTimes appeared on. WarTimes is also the name of an anti-war-on-al-Qaeda propaganda newspaper Jones helped organize. The album featured cop killer Mumia abu-Jamal."

     The wonder is that Van Jones was deliberately recruited into the administration, and the mistake wasn't spotted, regretted and rectified long ago.

     Posted by HugoPirovano at 09/07/2009 @ 07:17am

108. Here is a bit more about the recording by Van Jones and the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights:

     " The American way, manufactuered by these white folks in office. By these rich men here to mock us. The United States is a stolen land led by right-wing, war hungry, oil thirsty. And when it's all said and done they still can't clean their own place because they got people of color playing servant to do that sh*t for them... The true terrorists are made in the US, in this police state... The US is a crack-fiend for oil. And they're ready to rape, kill, assault, rob anybody and everybody...

     "Bombing babies in the night. Two wrongs don't make a right... The US needs to exit its colonies in Iraq, in the region and finally in Israel.

     "Van Jones: At this point. The end of the occupation. The right of return of the Palestinian people. These are critical dividing lines in human rights. We have to be here. No American would put up with an Israeli-style occupation of their hometown for 53 days let alone 54 years. US tax dollars are funding violence against people of color inside the US borders and outside the US borders. "

     This was a Jeremiah Wright hater of whitey America and Jews in Obama's West Wing.

     Posted by HugoPirovano at 09/07/2009 @ 07:24am

109. posted by HugoPirovano at 09/07/2009 @ 7:42am

     So what are you saying, Hugo? That you WOULD put up with an Israeli-style occupation for 54 years?

     Posted by cdlepthien at 09/07/2009 @ 08:12am

110. Posted by HugoPirovano at 09/07/2009 @ 07:17am

     "The wonder is that Van Jones was deliberately recruited into the administration, and the mistake wasn't spotted, regretted and rectified long ago."

     Actually, to me, the wonder is that anyone really believes that hiring Van Jones was a 'mistake'. The only 'mistake' made was that he was discovered and exposed, despite the best efforts of the Obama-fawning MSM to cover him up. There's plenty of Van Jones' left in the Obama Administration.

     Posted by pontificus at 09/07/2009 @ 08:15am

111. it is leftist trade, labor, and environmental policy that has shipped American manufacturing industry and jobs overseas. Posted by pontificus at 09/06/2009 @ 11:51pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     yeah right, the bosses had nothing to do with it.

     it's called blame the victim.

     Posted by emile duBois at 09/07/2009 @ 08:23am

112. Posted by HugoPirovano at 09/07/2009 @ 07:24am

     " The American way, manufactuered by these white folks in office. By these rich men here to mock us. The United States is a stolen land led by right-wing, war hungry, oil thirsty. And when it's all said and done they still can't clean their own place because they got people of color playing servant to do that sh*t for them... The true terrorists are made in the US, in this police state... The US is a crack-fiend for oil. And they're ready to rape, kill, assault, rob anybody and everybody...

     "Bombing babies in the night. Two wrongs don't make a right... The US needs to exit its colonies in Iraq, in the region and finally in Israel.

     "Van Jones: At this point. The end of the occupation. The right of return of the Palestinian people. These are critical dividing lines in human rights. We have to be here. No American would put up with an Israeli-style occupation of their hometown for 53 days let alone 54 years. US tax dollars are funding violence against people of color inside the US borders and outside the US borders. "

     Oh, come on Hugo. The fact is, these quotes are taken out of context, and you have viciously lied and distorted them to reflect badly on Van Jones and President Obama because, after all, you are probably a racist. Why don't you just admit it so we can all march happily forward to our wonderful non-partisan, non-racist new future, led by enlightened people like Van Jones?

     Posted by pontificus at 09/07/2009 @ 08:23am

113. Posted by emile duBois at 09/07/2009 @ 08:23am

     "yeah right, the bosses had nothing to do with it. "

     Yeah right, my friend, guns don't kill people, bullets do. And in the leftist fantasy world, fundamental economic laws are ALWAYS a world-wide right-wing conspiracy. If only we could all agree to pay each other what we feel we need, we'd all be okay, right? Right.

     "it's called blame the victim."

     Well, only in the sense that one can be victimized by one's own stupidity.

     Posted by pontificus at 09/07/2009 @ 08:28am

114. I've been here for years, in and out, and my meaningless blather has never really changed. Posted by pontificus at 09/07/2009 @ 12:59am | ignore this person | warn this person

     Posted by emile duBois at 09/07/2009 @ 08:29am

115. bull shit.it was a great victory for the republicans and rush limbaugh and glen beck.i despise those bastards but at the same time i have to give them credit for rubbing obama and his so called liberal supporter,s nose into dirt.an administration that is made of geitner(tax dodger)bernacke(economy wrecker)and all sorts of zionists who are working for the zionist reichtag is not worthy of any respect.

     i promise you that the republicans will win the next congretional and presidential elections.

     Posted by excalibur999 at 09/07/2009 @ 08:30am

116. Darla, go smoke another joint. I'm too fucking stupid to argue with. Posted by pontificus at 09/07/2009 @ 12:10am | ignore this person | warn this person

     I'll drink to that.

     Posted by emile duBois at 09/07/2009 @ 08:33am

117. Posted by jsergeant at 09/07/2009 @ 12:14am | ignore this person | warn this person

     you just arrived as a guest, and right away you want to change the furniture.

     leave this blog alone.

     Posted by emile duBois at 09/07/2009 @ 08:38am

118. i promise you that the republicans will win the next congretional and presidential elections. Posted by excalibur999 at 09/07/2009 @ 08:30am | ignore this person | warn this person

     Sieg Heil!

     Posted by emile duBois at 09/07/2009 @ 08:39am

119. Well, only in the sense that I can be victimized by my own stupidity. Posted by pontificus at 09/07/2009 @ 08:28am | ignore this person | warn this person

     Posted by emile duBois at 09/07/2009 @ 08:40am

120. congretional

     congretional? hahahahahahahha.

     Posted by emile duBois at 09/07/2009 @ 08:42am

121. The Van Jones exit is more a victory for the American people than for the right. We all know the motives of the Becks, Hannitys and Lumboughs but remember even blind hogs can occassionally find an acorn.

     Van Jones is just an example of what has happened to the American left and progressives since 1975 when foundations (principally the Ford & Rockefeller foundations and their coterie) began buying up anti-war activists and civil rights activists who were on the make and had no real principals. At the same time, these same Anglo/Dutch oligarchy controlled foundations began pouring money into the political correctness movement. (This includes Dutch oligarchy/intelligence agent Katrina van den Heuvel's purchase of The Nation with CIA money). All of this was to create a new left wing in America, a new progressivism, and a new Democratic Party run by neo-liberalism a movement started in England by the very same people who started the neo-con movement. Where the neo-cons infiltrated the right and the Republican Party, the neo-libs infiltrated the left and the Democratic Party. Where the neo-cons manipulated the foundamentalist Christians and the Zionists, the neo-libs began manipulating those who could identify with political correctness. Political correctness and its associated movements are the religion of this neo-lib movement. This neo-lib movement also found and bought Obama and his wife and cultivated them for the White House. The neo-lib movement squeezed out any descent from the real patriotic left during this last 35 years. The neo-lib movement is now funded by these same foundations and foreign oligarchs like George Soros, the kingpin of neo-liberalism. more below ...

     Posted by shadowknows at 09/07/2009 @ 09:02am

122. "Truthers" are every bit as wrong as "birthers" and "deathers".

     Posted by mdetrano at 09/06/2009 @ 8:56pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Yeah right. What you mean to say is that anti-truthers share a common goal with birthers and deathers. Answer these questions for us, since you are so sure of yourself. We want truthful answers to questions such as:

     Why were standard operating procedures for dealing with hijacked airliners not followed that day? Why were the extensive missile batteries and air defenses reportedly deployed around the Pentagon not activated during the attack? Why did the Secret Service allow Bush to complete his elementary school visit, apparently unconcerned about his safety or that of the schoolchildren? Why hasn't a single person been fired, penalized, or reprimanded for the gross incompetence we witnessed that day? Why haven't authorities in the U.S. and abroad published the results of multiple investigations into trading that strongly suggested foreknowledge of specific details of the 9/11 attacks, resulting in tens of millions of dollars of traceable gains? Why has Sibel Edmonds, a former FBI translator who claims to have knowledge of advance warnings, been publicly silenced with a gag order requested by Attorney General Ashcroft and granted by a Bush-appointed judge? How could Flight 77, which reportedly hit the Pentagon, have flown back towards Washington D.C. for 40 minutes without being detected by the FAA's radar or the even superior radar possessed by the US military? How were the FBI and CIA able to release the names and photos of the alleged hijackers within hours, as well as to visit houses, restaurants, and flight schools they were known to frequent?

     Posted by OneVote at 09/07/2009 @ 09:04am

123. What happened to the over 20 documented warnings given our government by 14 foreign intelligence agencies or heads of state? Why did the Bush administration cover up the fact that the head of the Pakistani intelligence agency was in Washington the week of 9/11 and reportedly had $100,000 wired to Mohamed Atta, considered the ringleader of the hijackers? Why did the 911 Commission fail to address most of the questions posed by the families of the victims, in addition to almost all of the questions posed here? Why was Philip Zelikow chosen to be the Executive Director of the ostensibly independent 911 Commission although he had co-authored a book with Condoleezza Rice?

     Posted by OneVote at 09/07/2009 @ 09:05am

124. The principal organizational face of this movement is the netroots coalition and its armies in George Soros controlled Move-On and ACORN (Obama's alma matter). And the principal instigators remain the Anglo/Dutch foundations and their leaders in London. For example, the primary person convincing Obama that the war in Afghanistan was the neo-liberal leader Tony Blair who when he is not manipulating Obama has managed to manipulate the Arab states into supporting Israel's upcoming war on Iran. The goal of Blair and the neo-libs is similar to that of the neo-cons except that where the neo-cons were authoritarian, the neo-libs are totalitarian. Both movements were instigated by the Anglo/Dutch oligarchy to divide and conquer America and get us into a war we can not win thus leading to the destruction of America and the American ideal as hope for the world and to give rise to a new British Empire called "global governnance". Remember as both Cheney and Bush were Skull & Bones (old British subversive secret society) so are Kerry and Gore. A true anti-war movement must look to the roots of the war and develop a strategy that does not serve either the neo-cons or the neo-libs; in other words, the war must end but American must not be further divided. True anti-war activists will educate the American people not vilify them when they turn out to town halls. Beware of the neo-libs as much as you were concerned about the neo-cons.

     Posted by shadowknows at 09/07/2009 @ 09:11am

125. This neo-lib movement also found and bought Obama and his wife and cultivated them for the White House. The neo-lib movement squeezed out any descent from the real patriotic left during this last 35 years.

     Posted by shadowknows at 09/07/2009 @ 09:02am | ignore this person | warn this person

     Don't forget the genesis of the Neo-Cons. Hatched from the Neo-Lib chicken. One look at the foreign policy positions of individuals such as Rahm Emmanuel will tell you that. Social liberalism is the bait and switch.

     Posted by OneVote at 09/07/2009 @ 09:22am

126. Posted by OneVote at 09/07/2009 @ 09:04am

     woooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!

     we gotta live one!

     Posted by pontificus at 09/07/2009 @ 09:25am

127. And one other thing to remember is that as concern and distress grows on the real left against Obama we must protect the American presidency. JFK was killed by the British oligarchy while advancing U.S. interests in conflict with British geopolitical aims. In his foreign and domestic policies, Kennedy had astonished the world by reverting to the idealistic nationalism last seen in those earlier murdered American Presidents. JFK was killed by assassins working for Canadian born British Crown Agent Maj. Louis Mortimer Bloomfield's Permindex organization which had previously failed to assassinate French leader Charles de Gaulle. Permindex hired ex-anti-Castro mercenaries, right-wing homosexual cultists in New Orleons and Mafia hitmen to complete the deed. New Orleans prosecutor was on the trail of Permindex when his investigation was sabotaged by the FBI. Garrison had correctly identified several of the conspirators including Clay Shaw & others in the Permindex/New Orleons homosexual cult/Mafia nexus who worked for Permindex. Maj. Bloomfield was an adviser to J. Edgar Hoover & the FBI's foreign counterintelligence section, known as Division Five which coordinated the cover-up. J. Edgar Hoover's numerous connections to the Mafia & memberships in right-wing homosexual cults have become known in recent years. The British have assassinated several of our Presidents and may do so again. If the Obama administration does turn against the war he must be supported. But I am not holding my breath that he will. He seems to be totally mesmerized by Tony Blair's spell that Afghanistan is the good war and necessary.

     Posted by shadowknows at 09/07/2009 @ 09:26am

128. "New" conservatives initially approached this view from the political left. The forerunners of neoconservatism were most often socialists or sometimes liberals who strongly supported the Allied cause in World War II, and who were influenced by the Great Depression-era ideas of the New Deal, trade unionism, and Trotskyism, particularly those who followed the political ideas of Max Shachtman.[citation needed] A number of future neoconservatives, such as Jeane Kirkpatrick,[citation needed] were Shachtmanites in their youth; some were later involved with Social Democrats USA.[citation needed]

     Source: Wikipedia

     Posted by OneVote at 09/07/2009 @ 09:32am

129. "This guy, like so many other empty suits, found that in the absence of real skills and talents he could make living off of his color, and as an ideologue."

     i'm waiting to see if anyone can say anything more absurd than the above......

     Posted by darladoon at 09/07/2009 @ 09:34am

130. Posted by darladoon at 09/07/2009 @ 09:34am

     "i'm waiting to see if anyone can say anything more absurd than the above......"

     Okay Darla, I'll take that challenge:

     Joe Biden: ‘We Have to Go Spend Money to Keep From Going Bankrupt'

     Rep Pete Stark: "the more we owe, the wealthier we are."

     I win!!!!

     Posted by pontificus at 09/07/2009 @ 09:37am

131. Oh, I forgot the bonus round for Pete Stark!

     "the more we owe, the wealthier we are - you need an advanced degree in economics to understand this"

     LOL

     Posted by pontificus at 09/07/2009 @ 09:41am

132. And then DOUBLE BONUS points for Rep Pete Stark:

     Interviewer: 'But Congressman, the more we borrow, the more we must pay in interest costs, which means we have even less to spend on our budgetary concerns...."

     Stark: 'Get the fuck outta here!!'

     OMG!

     Posted by pontificus at 09/07/2009 @ 09:44am

133. These are the people running our government! Help!

     Posted by pontificus at 09/07/2009 @ 09:44am

134. darla, we had no idea you're so passionate for Communism! Why should we attempt to identify it for you. We'll never be able to match your gauzy vision no matter what sources we would happen to quote. I'm sure you've got the correct definition, all full of equality and justice and perfection, and the conviction that the world just hasn't been allowed to try out a system that would most assuredly lead to a perfect egalitarian society. Therefore, when Jones is called a Communist or radical-Marxist, or Maoist, you hear nothing but praise and wonder why people are upset.

     Posted by sntauri at 09/07/2009 @ 09:49am

135. OneVote,

     Interesting that you mention the Jeane Kirkpatrick who died in 2006. She was an ardent cold warrior whose family owns interests in mineral mines throughout the world and especially in African and Latin America. You may remember a series of debates that the Anglo/Dutch oligarchy and their representatives in America had in the 1980s over which system, authoritarianism (fascism) or totalitarianism (communism) was the best approach for oligarchical control of America and the human race. There was not clear consensus in these debates (many of which were actually televised on cable) but the majority came down in favor of authoritarianism and so the neo-con movement was launched in earnest. But some of the spooks and oligarchs leaned toward George Soros view of neo-liberalism. All one has to do is go back and review those debates to see the eggs that hatched both Cheney and Obama. As to divide and conquer as the strategy being employed to destroy America, just look at Al Gore's recent speechs to his master in London where he blatently says that cap & trade (the global warming hoax) and the health care and other Obama/netroots/Soros measures in America are just a stepping stones toward "global governance".

     Posted by shadowknows at 09/07/2009 @ 09:50am

136. "in order to form a more perfect union......"

     gee, how communist of me.

     Posted by darladoon at 09/07/2009 @ 09:52am

137. "Therefore, when Jones is called a Communist or radical-Marxist, or Maoist, you hear nothing but praise and wonder why people are upset."

     sntauri, your "analysis" makes no sense whatsoever. please, if you're going to write something, make sure it:

     a) is logical

     b) factual; and

     c) well-written.

     Posted by darladoon at 09/07/2009 @ 09:54am

138. sntauri, how is van jones a "radical marxist"? do you have any evidence of this, other than a series of random, decontextualized statements he has made in the past?

     i want concrete evidence of decisions and/or actions he has made to support the claim that he is a practising marxist.

     Posted by darladoon at 09/07/2009 @ 09:56am

139. And as to Van Jones and his ilk, just follow the money funding his ignominious career. He is not a leftist. He is just another guy on the make. Always was and always will be. Good riddance! Except that, of course, his neo-libs backers will get him a good job in the netroots cabal. The guys gotta eat. This is probably not the last we will here from this moron. More dangerous is another Obama tzar (to use the rights term for those actually determining Obama's ideas (he has none himself) is the truly insane John Holden. This nut actually wants to use NASA to shoot particles into low earth orbit to block out the sun and reduce global warming. This guy is far more dangerous than a simple opportunist like Van Jones.

     Posted by shadowknows at 09/07/2009 @ 09:56am

140. can someone have "marxist" views, or utilize a marxist critique, and yet still work, pay taxes and follow the law? of course.

     but, for people like sntauri, pontifucus, and jomamma, anyone who has even read marx, let alone utilized marxist criticism (one of the most bullet-proof forms of criticism there is) in their critique of power and capital, is a traitor and is unfit for working inside the US government.

     Posted by darladoon at 09/07/2009 @ 09:59am

141. "And as to Van Jones and his ilk, just follow the money funding his ignominious career. He is not a leftist. He is just another guy on the make."

     evidence?

     Posted by darladoon at 09/07/2009 @ 10:00am

142. And, again, there is no use pointing out that Van Jones was at one time an avowed "Marxist". That was just the politically correct flavor of the time. He is an opportunist like most of the leaders of the Apollo alliance, netroots, Moveon and ACORN. They will adapt what every language and terms are appropriate at any given moment in order to advance the Soros/Blair neo-lib agenda. In this sense, the neo-cons are actually more principled than the neo-libs. The neo-cons will look you in the face and then stab you in the belly while the neo-libs pat your on the back and then stab you in the back.

     Posted by shadowknows at 09/07/2009 @ 10:00am

143. And here is one more indication that the neo-libs and the neo-cons spring from the same pulloted well. The netroots organization providing much of the organizational strength for the anti-Bush movemens was ANSWER which is fact was the old British controlled Trotskyite organization Workers World similar to the Bitish controlled Trosykites that form the leadership of the neo-cons. And I could go on about all the opportunities in the netroots coalition. Just trace their ideological beginnings and most importantly the money they get from Anglo/Dutch foundations.

     Posted by shadowknows at 09/07/2009 @ 10:07am

144. And I could go on about all the "opportunities" in the netroots coalition.

     I meant OPPORTUNISTS. As you all know when you type real fast on blogs you can make typos. Sorry

     Posted by shadowknows at 09/07/2009 @ 10:08am

145. "darla, we had no idea you're so passionate for Communism! "

     yeah, so passionate that i:

     a) work

     b) pay bills

     c) pay taxes

     d) give to charities

     how communistic can one possibly get before i morph into the visage of karl marx, himself!

     Posted by darladoon at 09/07/2009 @ 10:12am

146. darla, I'll answer you later. I most go now and be exploited by my Capitalist master who benefits from my labor and pays me a pittance so I can afford my internet connection!

     Posted by sntauri at 09/07/2009 @ 10:14am

147. And one more thing. WHERE will you find the real anti-war movement, the real activists for peace & justice, the real left. Not in the well-financed netroots organizations but in individuals who have not been bought off. Again, trace the money behind anyone who says they are for health care for all, behind anyone who says they are for justice & equality, behind anyone who is against the U.S. being in land wars in Asia. If the money comes from well-funded foundations, phony trade unions, foreign oligarchs (or their U.S. counterparts) then you know you are dealing with subversive, back-stabbing, dirty-dealing, lying SOBS like Van Jones or John Holden or, perhaps, even bloggers like darladoon.

     Posted by shadowknows at 09/07/2009 @ 10:15am

148. "then you know you are dealing with subversive, back-stabbing, dirty-dealing, lying SOBS like Van Jones or John Holden or, perhaps, even bloggers like darladoon"

     yes, follow the money into african-american herbalist darladon's solar-powered commune, where everything is shared because we are too poor.

     yeah, big time back-stabbing subversion going on here.

     Posted by darladoon at 09/07/2009 @ 10:18am

149. I am sure that its been noted here that there is no mention of the word "Czar" in the constitution. Hence, there is no requirement that these "senior advisors" be vetted by anyone other than the President. Especially by congress or Fox News for that matter.

     Posted by markdolph at 09/07/2009 @ 10:19am

150. darladoon, if I besmirched you incorrectly, I apologize. It is just that I don't trust anyone on this blog who can defend Van Jones and his phony left ilk.

     Posted by shadowknows at 09/07/2009 @ 10:27am

151. "It is just that I don't trust anyone on this blog who can defend Van Jones and his phony left ilk."

     tell us, specifically, what van jones has done which would require his immediate removal from office, other than fulfilling the role of a "phony" leftist in your mind?

     i want specifics, shadowknows. not overarching conspiracy theories. i want specific examples of actions he has taken which would require his removal from office. not statements, but actions.

     if you cannot answer this question, then i will put you on permanent ignore.

     Posted by darladoon at 09/07/2009 @ 10:30am

152. I am always amazed at people who have read three books on a subject are experts. What I think is worse are people that live comfortably and then believe that people that have a social conscience are wrong. Then they can tune into their favorite commentator and nod their head contentedly. Darla,go read a political treatise in your library and spend the time to absorb it. You will find your opinion changes. This is like the pathetic opposition to our President speaking to our school kids. Our children should be thrilled to have the President speak to "them". Unfortunately their parents want to wreck that opportunity for them. Why? They think their kids political beliefs will be dramatically affected at age 9. Obama thought he would have 1 audience that would be open minded when he spoke to them. It tells you how combative the conservative "movement" is. For us liberals we just realize we have to fight through the rancor and disruptiveness that is presented to us every day.

     Posted by whatizz at 09/07/2009 @ 10:31am

153. markdolph

     We have a long tradition of our Presidents having advisors who are not vetted by Congress, but this is the first time in history that these advisors were given policy powers similar cabinent secretaries. I don't like to use any term used by the right such a "czars" but we must have some term for these "advisors" with extraordinary powers and totalitarian ideas. Would "bosses" be better?

     Posted by shadowknows at 09/07/2009 @ 10:32am

154. "Darla,go read a political treatise in your library and spend the time to absorb it."

     thanks for the tip!

     Posted by darladoon at 09/07/2009 @ 10:34am

155. "with extraordinary powers and totalitarian ideas"

     give specific examples of some of van jones's totalitarian ideas and "extraordinary powers", thank you.

     Posted by darladoon at 09/07/2009 @ 10:39am

156. "over which system, authoritarianism (fascism) or totalitarianism (communism) was the best approach for oligarchical control of America and the human race."

     Posted by shadowknows at 09/07/2009 @ 09:50am | ignore this person | warn this person

     Spot on Shadow. Two sides of the same coin. Both are designed to exploit, and the propaganda of both is designed to take advantage of upheavals wrought by political, economic and social cycles.

     Posted by OneVote at 09/07/2009 @ 10:40am

157. darladoon

     You want a specific for which Obama should be his removed from office.

     How about the 43 Americans who were killed in Afghanistan last month.

     But no, I am not calling for impeachment, just opposition from the left.

     Recognize that besides the various profit motives some have for escalating and continuing the Central Asia wars (it is not just Afghanistan but Pakistan and the surrounding countries also), there is also the geopolitical reasons such as the Great Game of keeping the region from developing economically. AGAIN, The person who convinced Obama, before he was elected, that Afghanistan was the "good war" was Britain's Tony Blair, an original instigator of the neocon & neolib movements, leader of the Queens Privy Council, director of the JP Morgan investment bank, who has made a career of trying to get the United States bogged down in wars we cannot win. He is the modern day Mephistopheles to Obama's Dr. Faustus. His central philosophy since at least the early 1990's is to resurrect a new British Empire not a free world led by the United States. Obama has been wooed and won by this devil and now we will pay with ever more blood and treasure, sinking our future while the "sceptered tyrants" such as Blair & his masters further their goals for "global governance". I would call Obama a traitor but he is only a fool. I would say it is time to consider impeachment except that he will only be replaced by the rest of the Faustus family in the Democratic Party.

     Posted by shadowknows at 09/07/2009 @ 10:40am

158. not obama, shadowknows, van jones. i want a specific and valid reason why van jones should be removed from his post.

     btw, you're WAY off topic, which is against the rules.

     Posted by darladoon at 09/07/2009 @ 10:43am

159. give specific examples of some of van jones's totalitarian ideas and "extraordinary powers", thank you.

     Posted by darladoon at 09/07/2009 @ 10:39am | ignore this person | warn this person

     I don't have to darladoon, Beck and his crazy crew have already done that IN GREAT DETAIL As I said, even blind hogs will occasionally find an acorn.

     Posted by shadowknows at 09/07/2009 @ 10:43am

160. AND DARLADOON,

     None of us have to play by your rules.;

     Posted by shadowknows at 09/07/2009 @ 10:44am

161. "AND DARLADOON, None of us have to play by your rules.;"

     the rules of The Nation say "stay on topic"

     second, you can't answer my question of why van jones should be removed from his post, and instead validate the right wing's criticisms !.

     Posted by darladoon at 09/07/2009 @ 10:46am

162. Van Jones is out. Get over it. Holden should be next.

     Posted by shadowknows at 09/07/2009 @ 10:48am

163. so shadowknows trolls the nation, drops a bunch of conspiracy theories about irrelevant topics, and then when questioned on them, doesn't have any response whatsoever, and instead insults and ignores me.

     and there we have it......another day, another troll.

     Posted by darladoon at 09/07/2009 @ 10:53am

164. nd instead validate the right wing's criticisms !.

     Dear, dear darladoon,

     The enemy of my enemy can sometimes be my friend. I opposed Bush and Cheney when they were in power corrupting our nation with neo-con wars & Patriot Act oppression and I now oppose Obama and Soros/netroots when they are in power corrupting our nation with neo-lib wars and politically correct oppression. And I am really glad to see on many blogs on the web that there are other Patriotic Leftists emerging to oppose Obama and the phony, foreign controlled left you support. Obama will go down just as Bush did. The sad part of Obama's failure will be that where he could have been a shining light for diversity in this country, he is actually going to harm diversity because it will be a long, long, long time before another person of color is elected to the highest office in the land. That is another reason I truly oppose Obama. He is just a house slave for Soros and company.

     Posted by shadowknows at 09/07/2009 @ 10:56am

165. "And I am really glad to see on many blogs on the web that there are other Patriotic Leftists emerging to oppose Obama and the phony, foreign controlled left you support"

     and you're an expert on who i support? i am questioning the resignation of van jones, and suddenly (!), this is about me supporting a soros-funded, neo-liberal cabal taking over the world?

     shadowknows, you're way out of your league here. i would just calmly remove your hand from your underpants, wipe of your keyboard with a towel, and go and take a nap.

     you have absolutely no idea who i am, what i believe in, and what my position is vis a vis obama.

     you're now on my ignore list <click>

     Posted by darladoon at 09/07/2009 @ 11:02am

166. darladoon,

     not conspiracy theories - BUT HISTORY. Go the library and learn something instead of flaking for netroots, Obama or the current owners of The Nation. It is not conspiracy theory that K.van den Heuvel bought the nation partially with money from the Fairfield Foundation run by the CIA. And it is not conpiracy theory that her family has for many, many decades been leaders of the Dutch oligarchy's intelligence agencies, or that her father was trained by Wild Bill Donovan of the OSS predecessor to the CIA, and was an agent of Zbigniew Brzezinski, the foreign oligarchical agent who ruined the Jimmy Carter administration, or that her father worked with the Skull & Bonesmen in the JFK administration who encouraged his early involvement in the Vietnam war, and who later was counsel for the arch-traitor Averill Harriman who actually delivered atomic secrets to the Soviet Union to heat up the Cold War (it wasn't the Rosenbergs), and who currently works for the Wall St. firm Allen & Company which is the premier firm on Wall St. controlling the media industry. Deals just don't get done in Hollywood unless Allen & Co. has a hand in it.

     Posted by shadowknows at 09/07/2009 @ 11:11am

167. And sense you are ignoring me, I guess you won't tell us what who you are, what you believe in, and what your position is vis a vis obama. Again, if I have mischaracterized you, I opologise. Perhaps you do have some criticisms of Obama. And ignoring people, only blinds you to their viewpoints, but it doesn't blind all the other readers of this blog. But don't worry, I am sure there are other Obama/soros/netroots supporters on the phony left who will attack me now that you have put on your blinders.

     Posted by shadowknows at 09/07/2009 @ 11:18am

168. Why should Van Jones be removed?

     Simple. Holding people to a common standard.

     Go back to the Bush administration. Let's say there is an advisor or czar there who was as far right as Van Jones is far left. Let's say there are Youtube postings of this man over the last 10 years or more saying things about other minorities in the manner Van Jones said things about white people.

     Like pointing out in a public forum that blacks comprise 14% of the population, but are responsible for around 35% of the crime. Or that black teens shot by other black teens eclipse the Columbine shootings by several orders of magnitude each year.

     Let's just suppose that such a man existed in the White House. That he was an avowed fascist in the manner Van Jones avowed his communism.

     Honestly, do you suppose the American Left and the media would not hound this man out of office? Is it too much to ask that our officials NOT belong to radical fringe elecments?

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/07/2009 @ 11:35am

169. The major problem with arguing new con repub ideas is that they're drawn in a contour line that is only about a two dimensional definition. They negate 99% of the content which describe tone or value, texture, color, perspective and most of the other elements and concepts of design needed for unity.

     The contour line in itself is a contrived static boundary that divides one state from another without showing how that state actually connects to another. It's a socially indoctrinated view of information in its most simplistic of terms-- a cartoon.

     Traditionally the cartoon was an exaggerated caricature, the first step met for many refinements. Most artists were extremely hesitant to ever let others see the cartoons of their artwork because of the sometimes unseemly distortions in major need of that other 99% of content creating the whole image. And to let others see them might have in most cases caused them an unfortunate end as patrons were usually very powerful.

     Not so ironic that now new con repub expose their own moronic cartoon arguments at the behest or even bequest of their patrons.

     And is it no wonder that new con repubs use their cartoon arguments to distort and disown most science, logic, facts, perspective, nuanced subtleties,... in order to flatten out and distance that which would connect it to the other 99% of reality.

     To argue with new con repubs is like limiting ones reading to the comic section in newspapers.

     And perhaps even why a lot of people now get their news from comedians....

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/07/2009 @ 11:37am

170. Well, the Founders sure seemed to think those boundary lines had some significance. And that government closer to the people, at the state, county and city level, was more responsive to the people than is the case at Washington D.C.

     Those lines are to DELINEATE the difference between states. There is no way or reason to show the "interconnectedness". Each state was intended to be a largely self-contained, sufficient political unit in it's own right.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/07/2009 @ 11:43am

171. Yes, perhaps new con repubs are enjoying having drawn Obama living in their new con repub funny papers and not in our executive branch.

     He needs to think outside the new con repub box.

     For one, it is so very flat.

     For another it's a box of their own making.

     Let them live in it.

     The rest of us don't and won't.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/07/2009 @ 11:47am

172. and Van Jones, sir, if you are reading this blog about you, re your ridiculous statement that white suburban teens who shoot up their schools in mass killings are worse than black kids who shoot other blacks every day, have you forgotten about the Beltway sniper? You are probably right about the vacuus lives of suburban white teens but you are wrong about the violent culture of the black underclass still infecting our urban centers. Most african americans have over the past 50 years moved into the working middle class, but there is still a good 25% of blacks who are in the criminal underclass. This is the national shame you should be talking about instead of comparing one shame with another. You are, sir, a black racist who only loves to find contradictions in white America while ignoring the contradictions of black America. You love to stir the racial pot, Mr.. Jones, just as people like Lestor Maddox did a few decades ago. We can only be one nation without racial divide when minority racism is condemned as much as majority racism.

     Posted by shadowknows at 09/07/2009 @ 11:51am

173. Posted by hsuBfools at 09/07/2009 @ 11:37am

     A perfect example posting how drugs can impair your mind so badly that you actually think that the jibberish you are writing makes sense.

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/07/2009 @ 11:57am

174. This 'rightwingnut' honors his name but most of it for the "nut" intellectually challenged part. I will be brief because you don't deserve anything better than silence.

     1) War is the last resource. Saddam was not an angel, but he did not kill 25,000 a year. So, if he killed 25K a year, we go there and kill 300K or more in three years. Ho, Ho, If this is the case, well why did not we went after Stalin or after Mao? What is your logic nut? Or we must go after every dictator that we feel is weak enough, specially if his country has lots of oil as a reward.

     2) The Afghan war is not even well defined, less the exit to it. The US should not (and probably even can not) build up nations from raw. Another mixed strategy approaches are far better. And if it is about saving babies, surely there is an enormous task all over the world without any war.

     3) Human rights advocates have in common the following: they are anti-dictatorship, pro freedom, pro justice, pro diversity, women and minorities, pro religious tolerance, etc, etc, essentially pro power for the people . Exactly all the things that the Reps are against to. And we apply it to every country in the world including the US. Wars don't solve human rights problems, they accentuate them most likely. It is social maturation and human respect that solves those problems.

     4) Good to see the rage in your responses. It comes from your impotence around ideas. Get away warmonger!

     Posted by Frank42 at 09/07/2009 @ 11:59am

175. he Afghan war is not even well defined ...

     Posted by Frank42 at 09/07/2009 @ 11:59am | ignore this person | warn this person

     I am afraid the Afghan war is VERY WELL DEFINED in the eyes of the foreign oligarchs & their agents who have manipulated the U.S. into this quagmire. It is to get the U.S. blamed as the war monger (instead of Britain) and to divide America. Over 50 years ago, the great & patriotic U.S. general Douglas McArthur warned us to never, never get involved in a land war in Asia. That is only a loosing proposition for the United States. But we haven't learned anything. The British agent Harry Truman got us into Korea (against McArthur's protests), the Skull & Bonesmen got us into Vietnam and now Tony Blair & his ilk have gotten us bogged down in Afghanistan. Loose, loose, loose situations. Patriots who are truly opposed to these asian land wars, these Asian quagmires must oppose anyone, Republican or Democrat, who does the dirty work of foreign oligarchs trying to destroy America and the American ideal.

     Posted by shadowknows at 09/07/2009 @ 12:10pm

176. Posted by hsuBfools at 09/07/2009 @ 11:37am A perfect example posting how drugs can impair your mind so badly that you actually think that the jibberish you are writing makes sense. Posted by antisocialist at 09/07/2009 @ 11:57am

     To you probably 99% that is not a flat, black or white, inside out and upside down, is jibberish.

     And you're such a hypocrite to even mention drug use, because you once stated you even fed your own family depleted uranium defending its manufacture. Are you saying you didn't take any of it yourself and only your family consumed it? Is it your guilt then that has so blinded you to following satan?

     See these new con repub cartoon arguments in the funny papers. Er, the green room...

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/07/2009 @ 12:20pm

177. And you're such a hypocrite to even mention drug use, because you once stated you even fed your own family depleted uranium defending its manufacture. Are you saying you didn't take any of it yourself and only your family consumed it? Is it your guilt then that has so blinded you to following satan?

     See these new con repub cartoon arguments in the funny papers. Er, the green room...

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/07/2009 @ 12:20pm

     I don't know why I even bother given your proclivity for lying; however, I have never fed my family depleted uranium, nor have I ever fed it to myself or anyone else.

     This is just part of your dementia for which you really need to seek professional help.

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/07/2009 @ 12:22pm

178. "Let's just suppose that such a man existed in the White House. That he was an avowed fascist in the manner Van Jones avowed his communism. Honestly, do you suppose the American Left and the media would not hound this man out of office?"

     that man is karl rove, and he was never removed from office by the so-called 'american left'. and he continues to work inside the beltway.

     Posted by darladoon at 09/07/2009 @ 12:33pm

179. darladoon

     I know you are ignoring me, but you have a good point on Karl Rove being as polarizing as Van Jones. And it really is too bad that the left never really took any heads during the Bush years. But do really think Van Jones will NOT continue to work inside the beltway and advise Obama. These birds of a feather will continue to flock together. Van Jones is a well-supported leader of the neo-libs and I am sure they have found him another job. He will pop up again.

     Posted by perryfellwock at 09/07/2009 @ 12:50pm

180. that man is karl rove, and he was never removed from office by the so-called 'american left'. and he continues to work inside the beltway.

     Posted by darladoon at 09/07/2009 @ 12:33pm

     You're truly delusional if you think that Karl Rove is a fascist.

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/07/2009 @ 12:52pm

181. "And in the leftist fantasy world, fundamental economic laws are ALWAYS a world-wide right-wing conspiracy. If only we could all agree to pay each other what we feel we need, we'd all be okay, right? Right."

     Beautifully put.

     Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/07/2009 @ 12:55pm

182. #

     that man is karl rove, and he was never removed from office by the so-called 'american left'. and he continues to work inside the beltway.

     Posted by darladoon at 09/07/2009 @ 12:33pm

     You're truly delusional if you think that Karl Rove is a fascist.

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/07/2009 @ 12:52pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     antisocialist, FYI

     Perhaps, Karl Rove is not a fascist, but his family was. Rove's grandfather was Karl Heinz Roverer, the Gauleiter of Oldenburg. Roverer was Reich-Statthalter---Nazi State Party Chairman---for his region. He was also a partner and senior engineer in the Roverer Sud-Deutche Ingenieurburo A. G. engineering firm, which built the Birkenau death camp, at which tens of thousands of Jews, Gypsies, dissidents and other were slaughtered en masse.

     Posted by shadowknows at 09/07/2009 @ 12:57pm

183. "You're truly delusional if you think that Karl Rove is a fascist."

     i'm not arguing he was a fascist, i'm saying that karl rove was one of the most divisive, cruel, conniving, and law-breaking members of any white house staff in the history of our country. he was a protege of lee atwater's, and we all know the evil atwater style.

     van jones did not politicize the justice department. van jones did not the leak the name of a CIA agent. van jones did not swiftboat a decorated vietnam veteran. van jones did not do a single thing to merit his resignation other than say a couple things which made a handful of powerful white people uncomfortable.

     Posted by darladoon at 09/07/2009 @ 12:58pm

184. "Saddam was not an angel, but he did not kill 25,000 a year. So, if he killed 25K a year,"

     http://tinyurl.com/ntb3uj

     "According to this article the Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled information on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq under Saddam Hussein's regime. That's probably low as its just the executions we know about and it doesn't include those who died because Saddam diverted money from the UN's humanitarian oil-for-food program into his own coffers, but we'll use it anyway. If we consider that Saddam Hussein was in power for 24 years, those 600,000 executions puts his yearly death toll at about 25,000/year."

     This is not even counting the 250,000 or so Saddam killed in his two genocides in 1988 and 1991, or the sanctions or the Iran-Iraq war.

     Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/07/2009 @ 1:00pm

185. "Ho, Ho, If this is the case, well why did not we went after Stalin or after Mao? What is your logic nut? Or we must go after every dictator that we feel is weak enough, specially if his country has lots of oil as a reward."

     My logic was already spelled out as follows:

     "If Saddam's divide-and-rule policies, which in fact were re-enacted by insurgents working with the very Baathist secret police who carried them out during his two decade long reign of terror, were prolonged, the consequences of the collapse of his regime would have been inevitable and the violence following it would have been on a far greater scale than what we saw following the actual collapse of Baathist rule in 2003 when Saddam died unless Saddam's sons were able to succeed him successfully. But even if they ruled Iraq for decades, they would only have brutalized Iraq further to ensure an even bloodier implosion unless there was a Saddam 3 to succeed them successfully.... there was only a choice between an implosion resulting in more deaths than the total number killed throughout the entire war, OR, say, 15 more years of Saddam followed by a few more decades under his sons followed by a few more decades under another Baathist dictator and maybe even possibly another one after that, OR some combination of these two options (i.e., Saddam's sons take over for decades, they die, and then Iraq implodes), OR an invasion. It is obvious that an invasion was the most humane possible option, even ignoring the strategic wisedom of the choice to invade."

     Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/07/2009 @ 1:05pm

186. to rightwingnutcase;

     here is a picture of Donald Rumsfeld, the representative of the Reagan administration, later Bush's Defense Secretary, shaking hands in 1983 with Saddam Hussein after Rumsfeld delivered to Hussein the poison gas shells that were used against the Kurds and Saddam's own people.

     http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

     Posted by shadowknows at 09/07/2009 @ 1:05pm

187. "Human rights advocates have in common the following: they are anti-dictatorship, pro freedom, pro justice, pro diversity, women and minorities, pro religious tolerance, etc, etc, essentially pro power for the people."

     Liberals aren't for power to the people.

     Walter Williams wrote recently: "Here is what my George Mason University colleague Professor Richard Wagner wrote, which was published by Office of the House Republican Leader: "Any so-called stimulus program is a ruse. The government can increase its spending only by reducing private spending equivalently. Whether government finances its added spending by increasing taxes, by borrowing, or by inflating the currency, the added spending will be offset by reduced private spending. Furthermore, private spending is generally more efficient than the government spending that would replace it because people act more carefully when they spend their own money than when they spend other people's money." A short translation of Wagner's comment is: There is no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy. Let's examine the ruse.

     Suppose the value of all that we will produce in 2009, our gross domestic product (GDP), totals $14 trillion. There cannot be any disagreement that if Congress spends $4 trillion, of necessity there is only $10 trillion left over for us to spend privately. In other words, if Congress is going to spend $4 trillion, it must find a way to get us to spend $4 trillion less. The most open and aboveboard method to force us to spend less privately is to tax us to the tune of $4 trillion.

     You might say, "Congress doesn't have to tax us $4 trillion. They could tax us $3 trillion and run a $1 trillion budget deficit." You have that wrong. There is no way for Congress to spend $4 trillion out of our 2009 $14 trillion..

     Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/07/2009 @ 1:08pm

188. "...GDP by getting us to spend only $3 trillion less privately. It has to be $4 trillion less. Another method to force us to spend less privately is to print money and inflate the currency. Rising prices reduce our ability to spend privately since each dollar we hold will not buy as much. Another way is for Congress to borrow, thereby reducing our ability to spend privately. By the way, all of this means that in any real economic sense the federal budget is always balanced. That is, if Congress spends $4 trillion we must privately spend $4 trillion less whether it is accomplished through taxation, inflation or borrowing.

     In stimulus package language, if Congress taxes to hand out money, one person is stimulated at the expense of another, who pays the tax, who is unstimulated."

     In other words, liberals are not for power to the people. Their very policies are designed to take money that could be spent in the private sector from the most successful in order to have the government that "knows better" spend it instead of individuals who would have spent it more efficiently than the government had it not been taken from them.

     Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/07/2009 @ 1:12pm

189. he Afghan war is not even well defined ... Posted by Frank42 at 09/07/2009 @ 11:59am | ignore this person | warn this person I am afraid the Afghan war is VERY WELL DEFINED in the eyes of the foreign oligarchs & their agents who have manipulated the U.S. into this quagmire. It is to get the U.S. blamed as the war monger (instead of Britain) and to divide America. Over 50 years ago, the great & patriotic U.S. general Douglas McArthur warned us to never, never get involved in a land war in Asia. That is only a loosing proposition for the United States. But we haven't learned anything. The British agent Harry Truman got us into Korea (against McArthur's protests), the Skull & Bonesmen got us into Vietnam and now Tony Blair & his ilk have gotten us bogged down in Afghanistan. Loose, loose, loose situations. Patriots who are truly opposed to these asian land wars, these Asian quagmires must oppose anyone, Republican or Democrat, who does the dirty work of foreign oligarchs trying to destroy America and the American ideal. Posted by shadowknows at 09/07/2009 @ 12:10pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Indeed.

     There is still the "old boy" Anglophile network in American foreign policy willing to sacrifice all to the Anglo-Dutch financiers. The neocon right cheers on the ham-fisted use of this overwrought, bogged-down military machine of ours, oblivious to the fact they are serving a foreign oligarchy. The U.S. military machine is used as the muscle. Ike saw this coming and warned of the military-industrial complex.

     But, I'm sure some of our neocon friends will soon chime in and find a way to call Eisenhower et al. "commies" and "leftists." They are much more in their comfort zone if EVERYTHING can be cast in "liberal" v. "conservative" terms, a childish worldview.

     Posted by schnellerheinz at 09/07/2009 @ 1:13pm

190. "In other words, liberals are not for power to the people. Their very policies are designed to take money that could be spent in the private sector from the most successful in order to have the government that "knows better" spend it instead of individuals who would have spent it more efficiently than the government had it not been taken from them."

     so, according to your logic, bush would have been a liberal, too, as he began the process of bailing out huge companies, as well as passing the first stimulus package.

     Posted by darladoon at 09/07/2009 @ 1:16pm

191. Karl Rove is not a fascist, but his family was. Rove's grandfather was Karl Heinz Roverer, the Gauleiter of Oldenburg. Roverer was Reich-Statthalter---Nazi State Party Chairman---for his region.....

     Posted by shadowknows at 09/07/2009 @ 12:57pm

     "family was"? "grandfather"?

     Are the older generation(s) responsible for raising the next or the unborn/new generations or is it the other way around and the new supposed to raise the old?

     Do we know if Magic's grandfather isn't Idi Amin or something similar.....perhaps even a cannibal?

     You raise some good points....for some posts I read...don't stray!

     Posted by Happy at 09/07/2009 @ 1:22pm

192. "they are anti-dictatorship"

     Noam Chomsky, George Galloway, Ramsey Clark, ect., are not anti-dictatorship. Those who oppose Saddam Hussein and the Taliban are anti-dictatorship.

     "pro freedom, pro justice, pro diversity, women and minorities, pro religious tolerance,"

     You can not be for Shiite-persecuting, Jew-hating women-stoning Taliban and be for religious tolerance, women, minorities, and equal rights. Period. Liberals are evil racists who humiliate and patronize and talk down to blacks while punishing them for success when they are successful and explicitly advocating discrimination against whites. They encourage racism by constantly making excuses for failures in black communities and by holding them to a much lower standard than Asians and whites. The Nation magazine is the most potent propaganda campaign for racism I have ever seen, particularly Gary Younge's ridiculous columns.

     Liberal collectivist racist policies are not in favor of justice.

     Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/07/2009 @ 1:22pm

193. " The Nation magazine is the most potent propaganda campaign for racism I have ever seen"

     that you've ever seen. uh-huh.

     let's repeat that, this guy thinks that the nation is the most racist publication he has "ever seen."

     right.

     Posted by darladoon at 09/07/2009 @ 1:27pm

194. ,I have never fed my family depleted uranium, nor have I ever fed it to myself or anyone else. Posted by antisocialist at 09/07/2009 @ 12:22pm

     Oh that's right, it was one of your other changeable monikers that stated that he lived next to a monitions plant that produced depleted uranium ordnance. That your decision to live there and let your family ingested years of exposure hadn't produced any harm. So you forgot that ever happened or were you lying then? Not that you ever do any of that now...

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/07/2009 @ 1:27pm

195. "so, according to your logic, bush would have been a liberal, too, as he began the process of bailing out huge companies, as well as passing the first stimulus package."

     Yes.

     "4) Good to see the rage in your responses. It comes from your impotence around ideas."

     No, it comes from my utter contempt and disgust for evil racist pacifist theocratic anti-semitic blind secular faith believing liberal lunatics.

     Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/07/2009 @ 1:27pm

196. " The Nation magazine is the most potent propaganda campaign for racism I have ever seen"

     that you've ever seen. uh-huh.

     let's repeat that, this guy thinks that the nation is the most racist publication he has "ever seen."

     right."

     To be absolutely clear, while the Nation IS explicitly in favor of discriminating against white people, my point was not that it was particularly potent as a propaganda campaign for racism against whites.

     It is potent as a propaganda campaign for racism against blacks.

     They encourage racism by constantly making excuses for failures in black communities and by holding them to a much lower standard than Asians and whites. The fact that even seemingly anti-racist mags like the Nation feel they have to bend over backwards to patronize blacks encourages racism.

     Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/07/2009 @ 1:34pm

197. ""so, according to your logic, bush would have been a liberal, too, as he began the process of bailing out huge companies, as well as passing the first stimulus package."

     Yes."

     well, that doesn't quite square with what you said here:

     "In other words, liberals are not for power to the people. Their very policies are designed to take money that could be spent in the private sector from the most successful in order to have the government that "knows better" spend it instead of individuals who would have spent it more efficiently than the government had it not been taken from them."

     so what you really mean is......bush (a liberal) was not for power to the people.

     uh-huh.

     just keep on talkin'.....

     Posted by darladoon at 09/07/2009 @ 1:36pm

198. Amazing.

     Either there are scores of rightwhiners out there who spend all their time monitoring and responding to John Nichols' work . . . or there's a couple well-paid corporate hacks doing that same under a series of fictitious names. Either way, it's telling that you guys take The Nation so seriously.

     By the way, last I checked, being a "revolutionary communist" was neither illegal nor even a disqualification for office in the United States. Not that Van Jones is such a person -- he's more independent-minded than that -- but as an American radical, Jones most definitely is of the ranks of such previous national servants as Carl Schurz and Thomas Paine. Not bad company.

     Posted by brmanski at 09/07/2009 @ 1:37pm

199. Happy

     You are right that descendants are not responsible for their ancestors mistakes or crimes.

     But do you think Bush would have been elected if the mass media had reported Rove's ancestry or Bush's grandfather's support of Adolf Hitler? At least, without Rove or Bush rebuking their granddads? Which they have never done, as far as I know.

     Posted by shadowknows at 09/07/2009 @ 1:40pm

200. "They encourage racism by constantly making excuses for failures in black communities and by holding them to a much lower standard than Asians and whites. The fact that even seemingly anti-racist mags like the Nation feel they have to bend over backwards to patronize blacks encourages racism."

     so in your mind, when a black student doesn't have money to go to a private school, and instead is at the mercy of the under-funded public school system, in the ghetto, and doesn't have adequate text books and supplies, and doesn't have adequate parental support (because both parents work two jobs), and doesn't have healthcare, that is an "excuse" for failure?

     and when the nation points out that black communities have a much more difficult time getting ahead.......that's an excuse?!

     Posted by darladoon at 09/07/2009 @ 1:40pm

201. but as an American radical, Jones most definitely is of the ranks of such previous national servants as Carl Schurz and Thomas Paine. Not bad company.

     Posted by brmanski at 09/07/2009 @ 1:37pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     This is most ignorant thing I have read yet on The Nation's blogs.

     Regardless of whether you support Van Jones are not, he clearly is not in the same league as the great patriots Carl Shurz or Thomas Paine. Neither of those guys took money from a foreign oligarch (George Soros) or oligarchical foundations (Rockefeller Foundation) during their careers as has Van Jones.

     Posted by shadowknows at 09/07/2009 @ 1:46pm

202. Oh that's right, it was one of your other changeable monikers that stated that he lived next to a monitions plant that produced depleted uranium ordnance. That your decision to live there and let your family ingested years of exposure hadn't produced any harm. So you forgot that ever happened or were you lying then? Not that you ever do any of that now...

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/07/2009 @ 1:27pm

     No, it's that you have a twisted memory. I said that I worked at the plant that produced the depleted uranium tipped shells and that I was present on numerous occasions at test firings.

     I also said that the mfg plant no longer exists and that residential housing has been there now for nearly 20 years with no indications of increased cancers or other health issues.

     That's quite different from your post.

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/07/2009 @ 2:31pm

203. What else, those brilliant legal eagles at PowerLine:

     A Van Jones Postscript

     September 7, 2009 Posted by John at 10:35 AM

     The defining accomplishment of Van Jones's life was his founding of the Ella Baker Freedom Center....I meant to look into who she was....Ron Radosh, an expert on the hard left of which he was once a member, has the answer:

     [T]he name of Jones' Oakland group, The Ella Baker Freedom Center, is most appropriate. Most people have referred to the late Baker as simply a civil rights activist....But in my book, Divided They Fell....the late civil rights lawyer Joe Rauh had noted that everything Baker said in the 60's might as well have been taken verbatim from The Daily Worker, the Communist Party newspaper. Baker was so pro-Communist that she attacked Hubert Humphrey and other liberal anti-Communists as ultra reactionaries....

     I think that sums up the Obama administration pretty well. If you think Hubert Humphrey was an ultra-reactionary, this administration's for you!

     UPDATE: At The Corner, Andy McCarthy....post is well worth reading in its entirety, but this paragraph fits well with the topic of this post:

     The Jones incident....as I argued last night, we have a U.S. government in which Van Jones was quite consciously selected because his views are representative of the president who made him the "green jobs czar." Van Jones isn't Alger Hiss. There's nothing covert about him. He didn't snooker Obama into bringing him aboard. He is who he is, and that's why Obama wanted him. Having a Communist in that job was perfect since the "green jobs" initiative is an important part of the hard Left's agenda to use environmentalism as an additional justification for usurping command of the economy.

     "Van Jones isn't Alger Hiss." Brilliant.

     Posted by Happy at 09/07/2009 @ 2:35pm

204. For those of you who want to know about Van Jones career, you do not have to listen crazy Glen Beck. Just go to Van Jones own website for the Ella Baker Center and you can learn all about his opportunistic career in the service of George Soros and the Rockefellers. Just look at the monetary awards he admits getting (follow the money) along side his self-serving bio as "a tireless advocate for the planet and its people, committed to creating a robust and expanding green economy and greatly expanding the coalition fighting global warming." No where, of course, on this site, does he mention his once Marxist affiliations nor his arrest for promoting a riot in Oakland. Again, I don't fault him for his Marxist background (everyone is entitled to make a mistake or two in their youth). I fault him as an opportunist in the pay of foreign oligarchical enemies of the people of the United States along with his neo-lib confederates.

     Posted by shadowknows at 09/07/2009 @ 2:52pm

205. P.S. re "a tireless advocate for the planet". Van Jones in his writings is also a proponent of the anti-human idea of allowing the "environment" and animals to sue people in court. Not to mention being one of Skull & Bonesman and leading oligarch Al Gore's flaks for the global warming hoax which has become an essential part of neo-lib religious dogma. For those of you on the right who think being a "Marxist" was a bad thing, that was nothing compared to his being an ultra-enviromentalist "Green". And those of you on the left should learn that there is a big, big difference between wanting to protect the environment from pollution and those anti-development, anti-progress neo-libs who think CO2 is a "green house gas." CO2 is a life gas. Always has been. The "Greens" are even bigger frauds than the "Marxists".

     Posted by shadowknows at 09/07/2009 @ 3:07pm

206. so in your mind, when a black student doesn't have money to go to a private school, and instead is at the mercy of the under-funded public school system, in the ghetto, and doesn't have adequate text books and supplies, and doesn't have adequate parental support (because both parents work two jobs), and doesn't have healthcare, that is an "excuse" for failure?

     Posted by darladoon at 09/07/2009 @ 1:40pm

     They could have money to go to private schools, but black Americans tend to congregate in cities governed by the Democratic politicians they continually elect. Politicians so beholden to teachers unions that they flatly refuse to consider any voucher system that would put those union-dominated schools in direct competition with private schools. This would require union members to actually work harder to provide a level of education that attracts customers, rather than just soak up tax money because most cannot afford an alternative.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/07/2009 @ 3:34pm

207. That's quite different from your post. Posted by antisocialist at 09/07/2009 @ 2:31pm

     But quite in context to the cites I was making:

     "The U.S. Department of Defense claims that no human cancer of any type has been seen as a result of exposure to either natural or depleted uranium.[8] Yet, U.S. DoD studies using cultured cells and laboratory rodents continue to suggest the possibility of leukemogenic, genetic, reproductive, and neurological effects from chronic exposure.[4] In addition, the UK Pensions Appeal Tribunal Service in early 2004 attributed birth defect claims from a February 1991 Gulf War combat veteran to depleted uranium poisoning.[9][10] Also, a 2005 epidemiology review concluded: "In aggregate the human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects in offspring of persons exposed to DU."[11]

     DU is considered both a toxic and radioactive hazard that requires long term storage as low level nuclear waste in very large quantities.[citation needed] Its use in incendiary ammunition is controversial because of potential adverse health effects and its release into the environment. [58][59][60][61][62][63] Besides its residual radioactivity, U-238 is a heavy metal whose compounds are known from laboratory studies to be toxic to mammals.

     Although slow, metallic uranium is prone to corrosion and small pieces are pyrophoric at room temperature in air.[24] When depleted uranium munitions penetrate armor or burn, they create depleted uranium oxides in the form of dust that can be inhaled or contaminate wounds. Additionally, fragments of munitions or armor can become embedded in the body."

     I believe your proposition in defending DU was that you weren't worried even if you did expose it to your own family.

     You still believe that?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/07/2009 @ 3:43pm

208. "but black Americans tend to congregate in cities governed by the Democratic politicians they continually elect."

     And why do they continually elect those that give them welfare? Why do blacks, rather than being evenly split politically, like more independant groups, always and consistently nationwide overwhelmingly vote for Democrats? They are dependant, and it is obvious that all the intelligent Democrats in Washington know very well that welfare has made them dependant... which is naturally the goal, since it gives them guranteed votes.

     I'm sure over 95% of Americans are free of racism. If Americans are so racist that setting lower standards for blacks, discriminating against whites, and punishing those blacks who are too successful is neccessary to ensure equal opportunity, then first you would have to explain why Asians and Indians tend to be much more academically successful than whites. Are evil white Americans anti-black but pro-Asian and pro-Indian? In addition, how come black African immigrants to the US, Canada, Britain, and other countries also are more academically successsful than whites, and, further, usually more academically successful than all other ethnic groups, including Asians and Indians? Are evil white Americans anti-black native-born citizens (the least academically successful group) but pro-black African immigrants (the most academically successful group)? If that seems unlikely, then the broken culture of gangs, rap, crime, dependancy, welfare, laziness, and vulgarity of too many black communities in America is the problem, since independant blacks from a completely different background achieve the exact opposite results as they do.

     Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/07/2009 @ 4:03pm

209. "In addition, how come black African immigrants to the US, Canada, Britain, and other countries also are more academically successsful than whites, and, further, usually more academically successful than all other ethnic groups, including Asians and Indians?"

     huh?

     Posted by darladoon at 09/07/2009 @ 4:07pm

210. I believe your proposition in defending DU was that you weren't worried even if you did expose it to your own family.

     You still believe that?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/07/2009 @ 3:43pm

     absolutely.

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/07/2009 @ 4:32pm

211. "huh?

     Posted by darladoon at 09/07/2009 @ 4:07pm"

     What don't you understand? From wikipedia:

     "According to the London Daily Times "Black Africans have emerged as the most highly educated members of British society, surpassing even the Chinese as the most academically successful ethnic minority."[15] In a side-by-side comparison of 2000 census data by sociologists including John R. Logan at the Mumford Center, State University of New York at Albany, black immigrants from Africa averaged the highest educational attainment of any population group in the U.S., including whites and Asians.

     According to an analysis of Census Bureau data by The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, some 48.9 percent of all African immigrants hold a college diploma.[16] This is slightly more than the percentage of Asian immigrants to the U.S., nearly double the rate for native-born white Americans, and nearly four times the rate for native-born African Americans. In an article by Clarence Page for the Chicago Tribune 43.8 percent of African immigrants had achieved a college degree, compared with 42.5 of Asian Americans, 28.9 percent for immigrants from Europe, Russia and Canada and 23.1 percent of the U.S. population. The article beginning with the lines "Do African immigrants make the smartest Americans?" was meant to call attention to the dubiousness of affirmative action.[17]

     Similar to the Asian American population, attainment rates vary widely between countries. While some African immigrants to the United States such as Nigerians,[18] Out of sub-Saharan Africans, Nigerians have both the largest number of immigrants as well as the highest educational attainment and income statistics.[18]"

     Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/07/2009 @ 4:38pm

212. My question still stands:

     "If Americans are so racist that setting lower standards for blacks, discriminating against whites, and punishing those blacks who are too successful is neccessary to ensure equal opportunity, then first you would have to explain why Asians and Indians tend to be much more academically successful than whites. Are evil white Americans anti-black but pro-Asian and pro-Indian? In addition, how come black African immigrants to the US, Canada, Britain, and other countries also are more academically successsful than whites, and, further, usually more academically successful than all other ethnic groups, including Asians and Indians? Are evil white Americans anti-black native-born citizens (the least academically successful group) but pro-black African immigrants (the most academically successful group)?"

     Is it that hard to understand? I understand that as a lefty you probably suffer from a relative lack of cognitive ability, but, still, where exactly are you getting stuck?

     Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/07/2009 @ 4:45pm

213. "sntauri, how is van jones a "radical marxist"? do you have any evidence of this, other than a series of random, decontextualized statements he has made in the past? i want concrete evidence of decisions and/or actions he has made to support the claim that he is a practising marxist." Posted by darladoon at 09/07/2009 @ 09:56am

     Hey darladoon! While you're waiting for that maybe you can tell ME which communities "ravaged by toxic waste" he helped out. I want concrete evidence, too. How about it?

     Posted by twillie at 09/07/2009 @ 4:55pm

214. "JFK was killed by the British oligarchy while advancing U.S. interests in conflict with British geopolitical aims. In his foreign and domestic policies, Kennedy had astonished the world by reverting to the idealistic nationalism last seen in those earlier murdered American Presidents. JFK was killed by assassins working for Canadian born British Crown Agent Maj. Louis Mortimer Bloomfield's Permindex organization which had previously failed to assassinate French leader Charles de Gaulle. Permindex hired ex-anti-Castro mercenaries, right-wing homosexual cultists in New Orleons and Mafia hitmen to complete the deed."

     Posted by shadowknows at 09/07/2009 @ 09:26am

     Hey we know this is true, 'cause it was in the movie, "The Rock", with Nic Cage and Sean Connery! Then Nic and Sean saved San Francisco from a nerve gas attack by domestic terrorists!

     Or was it in the movie JFK?

     Anyways, I know it's true, because it came from Hollywood, where Michael Moore's movies come from.

     Posted by twillie at 09/07/2009 @ 5:05pm

215. cdlepthien at 09/07/2009 @ 08:12am asked: >> So what are you saying, Hugo? That you WOULD put up with an Israeli-style occupation for 54 years? <<

     cdlepthien at 09/07/2009 @ 08:12am asked: >> So what are you saying, Hugo? That you WOULD put up with an Israeli-style occupation for 54 years? <<

     I would not put up with a Palestinian leadership which since 1948 has subordinated the quest for a Palestinian homeland to the goal of destroying the Jewish homeland.

     In 1947 the UN voted to partition the former British Mandate into separate homelands for the Jews and Arabs of the area. The Arab's share would have been more than double the size of the West Bank and Gaza and would have included much of the Galilee in what is now northern Israel. The Jews agreed and established their state. The Palestinians rejected this out of hand. Their spokesman at the UN, Azzam Pasha promised "to make the partition line a line of fire and blood." They battle, the Arabs vowed, would be reminiscent of the slaughters of Ghengis Kahn.

     Incidentally, if I had to put up with being occupied I would want it to be an Israeli-style occupation and not an Arab style, German style, French style or Russian style occupation.

     Ten years after 1967 Palestinian income had more than doubled, life expectancy was up by two years, infant mortality had plummeted and their illiteracy rates which had been among the highest in the world reversed. The Israelis did not just establish baby clinics and required that girls go to school, they piped in clean water from their water carrier, put up electrical lines connected to their grid, and for the first time Palestinians had abundant running water and electricity throughout the territories. For the first time they had a justice sys

     Posted by HugoPirovano at 09/07/2009 @ 5:13pm

216. Continued:

     ...and for the first time Palestinains had abundant running water and electricity throughout the territories. For the first time they had a justice system that was speedy, fair and not corrupt. Before the various intifado proceded to wreck the Palestinian ecnomy Israeli occupation was a goodsend. The Swiss newspaper, Neue Zuricher Zeitung published that analysis in July 1977 using UN statistics.

     The enemy of the Palestinians is not Israel but their leadership and Arab bigotry that cares nothing about a Palestinian homeland. They goal is the end of the Jewish homeland.

     Why, incidentally do you speak of 54 years of occupation? What happened in 1955? You are a keen mind.

     Posted by HugoPirovano at 09/07/2009 @ 5:16pm

217. Posted by HugoPirovano at 09/07/2009 @ 5:16pm

     The Palestinians made their bed many years ago when they chose Yassar "AK-47" Arafat over Gandhi-style civil disobedience.

     Posted by twillie at 09/07/2009 @ 5:26pm

218. rWnC- What is wrong with you ? Since you an expert on racial matters I will fill you in. America is a racist country. Is that clear enough for you? It goes along with what you have been espousing in the crap streaming out of your mouth. Did you use many "Whites only"bathrooms in your younger days?How would you have liked coming back from fighting inWW2 and seeing you were still a second class citizen? You can't define racism but you are practicing it. Republicans have had their thumbs on black people's necks for many years. They can see it you can't. I worked with plenty of black guys and they cannot identify with conservatives. I am stymied that every shot that can be taken at the middle class will be by this crowd. Every righty has an opinion, mostly they are wrong. If people that are rich are given tax breaks would they support the reconciliation party that gave them or the Democrats?

     Posted by whatizz at 09/07/2009 @ 5:28pm

219. Van Jones is a terrible loss, and it is unfortunate that some Republicans on the far right felt necessary to focus on Van in their staged town hall events. These events are staffed with Freedom Works paid operatives who are directed to disrupt town hall meetings to give the false impression that their right wing views are popular in the community.

     The plain fact is that Beck and Freedom Works' right-wing ideology that pretends that the market can solve everything or help most people all of the time has been tried for the last 30 years since Reagan and has been an unqualified failure. Markets have their place, but certainly are no substitute for the "visible" hand of sound public policy that lifts all boats.

     Poor neighborhoods have always been targets for polluters, and those at the bottom are always the last to participate in any new economic growth sector. Van Jones (and the President) wants to change all that as we promote and develop the green sector of the American economy.

     The Beck's and Freedom Works of the world are free to pretend that global warming does not exist, or that the polar icecaps are not melting or the atmosphere is not thinning. But to target Jones to try to undermine sound public policy that creates a new growing sector of our economy in which all can participate and benefit while we break our addiction to oil is simply wrong-headed and short-sighted.

     In "real" political terms, Van's ideas are here to stay and the Administration will continue to move forward on a number of Van inspired initiatives despite Beck and Freedom Works.

     The message is ALWAYS more powerful than the messenger, and Van's message of environmental justice for all will prevail.

     -Metteyya Brahmana

     Posted by Metteyya at 09/07/2009 @ 5:43pm

220. "Since you an expert on racial matters I will fill you in. America is a racist country."

     I don't agree that it generally is at all.

     Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/07/2009 @ 5:58pm

221. After a day of being exploited by my Capitalist master, I needed some fun reading.

     "Van Jones was President Obama's Special Advisor for Green Jobs at the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). He was the leader and founder of the radical group, Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM), a group explicitly committed to revolutionary Marxist politics."

     You can read "Reclaiming Revolution," STORM's official manifesto here:

     Reclaiming Revolution http://www.leftspot.com/blog/files/docs/STORMSummation.pdf

     It is filled with all the fun that one might expect. Enjoy youth cadre!

     Posted by sntauri at 09/07/2009 @ 6:06pm

222. pontificus at 09/07/2009 @ 08:15am said:

     >> Actually, to me, the wonder is that anyone really believes that hiring Van Jones was a 'mistake'<<

     To me this defense of Van Jones by John Nichols is a revelation. He speaks of right-wingnuts even as he demonstrates how extreme and radical he and the people at The Nation really are.

     Jones is to the left of Jeremiah Wright. Obama reached out to him and sat him down in his West Wing. Now we know what Green means. It means green with rancor, envy and hate for whitey and Jews.

     Initially I was sort of soft on Obama. I knew he was to the left of me, but he was an inspiration to black America and a great role model and a way of healing the distrust and low self-esteem over there. (I fully support his encouragement now of schoolchildren.) And I saw in him a telling rebuff to the world's anti-Americanism. But all that was before the Jeremiah Wright videos and the realization that admirer of Farrakhan had been Obama's family friend, mentor and spiritual adviser for 20 years.

     When those videos showed the country what a bigot he had cherished for most of his adult life Obama disowned Wright with indignation. I realized then that no part of this galoot is any good. He is not to be trusted. And here we see, he brought an even crummier version of Wright into the White House with him.

     The terrible things that have been said about Obama are true. He has an exceedingly attractive exterior, but withing he is rotten and ugly. It is impossible for the people close around him, and even those at a distance, like John Nichols, not to know the truth. But they don't mind because they are similarly infested with those worms of hate, paranoia and ressentiment.

     Posted by HugoPirovano at 09/07/2009 @ 6:08pm

223. Hugo, I'd say you are filled with hate, paranoia and resentment, just reading what you write, project much?

     Posted by Denise29 at 09/07/2009 @ 6:20pm

224. ITS TIME TO TAKE DOWN THAT ANTI-AMERICAN MARXIST VALERIE JARRETT....SHE KNEW ALL ALONG WHAT A FREAK JONES WAS....OF COURSE BARRY SOTERO AND HIS BITCH OF A WIFE NEW AS WELL....GET RID OF ALL THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL CZAR MARXISTS...NOW!!!!

     Posted by libzRfreaks2 at 09/07/2009 @ 6:24pm

225. GREEN IS THE NEW RED

     Posted by libzRfreaks2 at 09/07/2009 @ 6:26pm

226. Obama failed to the frame the narrative for his administration a long time ago. So the right wing has done it for him, and healthcare reform has become "government run" healthcare, and Jones gets tossed under the bus.

     Charlie M.

     Posted by cmsandia at 09/07/2009 @ 6:56pm

227. Obama names Ron Bloom as "Manufacturing Czar" today. Extensive bio, but doesn't seem to have ever actually worked in manufacturing. Investment banking and USW Union advisor. So a guy who never manufactured anything will advise his boss who never manufactured anything on how to improve the manufacturing economy.

     Sweet!

     Posted by sntauri at 09/07/2009 @ 6:59pm

228. "Dear is my friend--yet from my foe, as from my friend, comes good:

     My friend shows what I can do, and my foe what I should." Friedrich Schiller

     Keep the faith, Van.

     Posted by Sorelish at 09/07/2009 @ 7:06pm

229. GREEN IS THE NEW RED

     Posted by libzRfreaks2 at 09/07/2009 @ 6:26pm

     If democracy is RED because MOST people benefit from the public policy, then this red is good as long as it is self-sustaining.

     The government runs our military and it is one of the best in the world. I am a graduate of one of the best universities in the country, and it is a public university. The government also runs our police and fire departments.

     So the idea that government run operations are RED if we all benefit collectively from the government activity is just not persuasive.

     The most advanced economies in the world REQUIRE a mix of free market and socialized elements. If all you have is free market solutions, you simply would not be able to ensure that the benefits of a particular public policy are spread as widely as possible.

     This was highlighted under Bush, where only a small circle of corporations tied to oil and defense industries were the main beneficiaries of our public policy.

     For strategic and security reasons alone, pursuing a Green energy public policy that eliminates our dependence on oil is a good thing. So why not do it in a way that benefits more people?

     Posted by Metteyya at 09/07/2009 @ 7:09pm

230. Posted by whatizz at 09/06/2009 @ 11:32pm

     I know this just rocks that fantasy world you live in, but it is leftist trade, labor, and environmental policy that has shipped American manufacturing industry and jobs overseas.

     Posted by pontificus at 09/06/2009 @ 11:51pm

     Now that organized labor is under 15% or so of the American labor force, and we have lotsa cheap non-union labor, what gives?

     Posted by schnellerheinz at 09/07/2009 @ 7:10pm

231. But, I'm sure some of our neocon friends will soon chime in and find a way to call Eisenhower et al. "commies" and "leftists." They are much more in their comfort zone if EVERYTHING can be cast in "liberal" v. "conservative" terms, a childish worldview.

     Posted by schnellerheinz at 09/07/2009 @ 1:13pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     It is filled with all the fun that one might expect. Enjoy youth cadre!

     Posted by sntauri at 09/07/2009 @ 6:06pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     See?

     Posted by schnellerheinz at 09/07/2009 @ 7:15pm

232. Well Blowfish I think we were sold out by the Bush family and Dollar Bill.We certainly have a tremendous trade imbalance. Since we had Reagan declare war on labor the middle class has suffered. I will ask you this,if jeans were $17 in 1980 and $12 in 2009 do you think that is a result of leftist trade and labor practices. No I believe the multi national corporations profits went up and their labor expenses went down. Do you believe it is a bad thing to keep our air and water clean? Isn't it interesting that Toyota lost money when our economy tanked. I guess the question you have to ask yourself is,do we want to be the international markets dumping ground or do we want to make products ourselves? If not we can look towards a long time before we have a growing economy.

     Posted by whatizz at 09/07/2009 @ 7:40pm

233. Van Jones seems dumb.

     Posted by bleedingheart at 09/07/2009 @ 7:49pm

234. Posted by schnellerheinz at 09/07/2009 @ 7:15pm

     Did you read it yet? Are you filled with the thrill of the memories of the struggle for collectivist excellence?

     Posted by sntauri at 09/07/2009 @ 8:17pm

235. "It is impossible for the people close around him, and even those at a distance, like John Nichols, not to know the truth."

     ------------------------

     Absolutely correct, Hugo.

     "....Mine will be the most transparent administration in history...."

     What I find so intriguing about all of Obama's peculiar associations is that true fringe ideological radicals keep popping up in his past and present with seemingly no regard for how the public would interpret these affiliations and appointments. Did he honestly believe that Jones wouldn't be vetted-out? If he never imagined it, he's terribly naive. If he did, then he's a surprisingly reckless idiot who placed Jones in an untenable situation from the start.

     I know Obama is infinitely the smartest president ever, but how many more communist sympathizers does Obama think he can explain away in his short lifetime before America makes the right call on him? 2? An even dozen? The benefit of the doubt is nearing exhaustion and Barack Obama is furthering an erratic, disturbing image of himself. Something's up.

     "Uhhh, alright, Jones used to be a self-proclaimed communist truther, but he's not one anymore.... Really."

     ABSURD!

     Those who dare expose the truth about them are slandered and mocked for doing nothing more than letting these freaks speak for themselves. Transparency! Beck is irrelevant here and Nichols knows it. Well-intentioned, non-ideological people who voted for Obama also sit up and take notice. They're feeling suckered about this man's true id and he seems oblivious. He insists. Obama has rightfully earned all the suspicion he's drawn from all sides, and in return, he has been rewarded with the fastest approval-drop of any other man in presidential history. 8 months in.

     Enjoy.

     Posted by remex at 09/07/2009 @ 11:19pm

236. A recent poll showed that over half of Americans are willing to entertain the notion that socialism is a good idea. So, contrary to the premise of the right-wingers posting here, it is not enough to proclaim that a person is a "Marxist radical commie sympathizer" to discredit him or her. In fact, it might even earn some credit outside their crazed circle of friends.

     Obama should has stuck by his man.

     Posted by johnuw93 at 09/08/2009 @ 12:01am

237. "Obama should has stuck by his man."

     YES I AGREE ANOTHER WEEK WOULD HAVE DROPPED HIS POLL NUMBERS EVEN FURTHER...TOO BAD...WELL ONWARD TO THE NEXT MARXIST DOWNFALL...

     CAN YOU SAY VALERIE JARRETT??

     GO GET HER GLENN!!!!!!!!

     Posted by libzRfreaks2 at 09/08/2009 @ 12:18am

238. "Obama should has stuck by his man."

     I'll take you up on that. Let's hear how you'd put it, being that you've got the pulse of this country down tight and some polling data to back it up. You're about to sell the country that we're all wrong about Van Jones. Go full text limit if you'd like.

     You're President Barack Obama....

     Posted by remex at 09/08/2009 @ 12:18am

239. darladoon:

     He's confusing what economists call communism with Sovietism and Maoism, which is understandable after Nixon et al.

     Where I get lost is in all the shouting about "leftists" supporting terrorism. Where does that come from? Is it supposed to refer to supporting the rights of untried prisoners to see a lawyer, have a speedy trial, and not be subject to torture? And somehow, opposition to the Iraq invasion is equated with supporting Saddam Hussein? I've never seen anyone on the left who supported Hussein. What was opposed was entering a war on false pretenses--the claim that he supported the attack on the US, and had evil weapons while NATO was reporting that he did not (and he didn't), all as a way to appear to be doing something against "terrorism" while unilaterally supporting Israeli. And there's mention of Israel being a democracy. Probably because no one on Fox news ever mentions the seizure of property from non-Jewish landowners who were forcibly expelled from the area so that much of the original population would not be a part of this "democracy."

     In any case, before calling anyone a "leftist," some of the posters here might want to reconsider--the term originates from the sides of the aisle that members of the British parliament sat on in the 18th century. Those supporting the king and the unquestioned rule of the nobility sat on the right side. "The left" supported popular rule. Yes, in the same way that most democrats at least intend to support democracy and republicans instead want a republic, the left wants the majority of people to do well, while the right seeks the benefit and rule of the few.

     Posted by Jacob Johnson at 09/08/2009 @ 12:25am

240. darladoon:

     He's confusing what economists call communism with Sovietism and Maoism, which is understandable after Nixon et al.

     Where I get lost is in all the shouting about "leftists" supporting terrorism. Where does that come from? Is it supposed to refer to supporting the rights of untried prisoners to see a lawyer, have a speedy trial, and not be subject to torture? And somehow, opposition to the Iraq invasion is equated with supporting Saddam Hussein? I've never seen anyone on the left who supported Hussein. What was opposed was entering a war on false pretenses--the claim that he supported the attack on the US, and had evil weapons while NATO was reporting that he did not (and he didn't), all as a way to appear to be doing something against "terrorism" while unilaterally supporting Israeli. And there's mention of Israel being a democracy. Probably because no one on Fox news ever mentions the seizure of property from non-Jewish landowners who were forcibly expelled from the area so that much of the original population would not be a part of this "democracy."

     In any case, before calling anyone a "leftist," some of the posters here might want to reconsider--the term originates from the sides of the aisle that members of the British parliament sat on in the 18th century. Those supporting the king and the unquestioned rule of the nobility sat on the right side. "The left" supported popular rule. Yes, in the same way that most democrats at least intend to support democracy and republicans instead want a republic, the left wants the majority of people to do well, while the right seeks the benefit and rule of the few.

     Posted by Jacob Johnson at 09/08/2009 @ 12:25am

241. Liberals lose even when they win. Completely unconscious of how condescending they are.

     I'll tell you the truth about you. You'll never get anywhere until you're true to yourselves. You guys are in no position to make demands of others behavior. Moral indignation is hollow in you. You like pushing everyone you hate out in the open but now you guys are up. You wanted this job so learn to deal with rivals.

     What a dilemma it must be to have the soul of a socialist in America and not be able to proclaim it proudly. Having to admit to a conservative that he was right about him all along is much too unbearable for his pride. LOL!

     Posted by remex at 09/08/2009 @ 12:33am

242. Republicans believe they win even when they lose. Completely conscious of how condescending they are.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/08/2009 @ 07:22am

243. Posted by twillie at 09/07/2009 @ 5:05pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     The information I posted re JFK assassination is in the court papers left by the Garrison investigation. That Hollywood uses anything from real life is irrelevant. The point I was making is that the Queens Privy Counsel green lighted the JFK assassination just as Queen Victoria's head of intelligence, Lord Palmerston ordered the poisoning of Zachary Taylor and the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Queen Victoria's people also coordinated the assassinations of James Garfield and William McKinley. The Brits may not have murdered Franklin D. Roosevelt but their agent Harry S. Truman did immediately reverse most of FDR's plans for the world after WWII and indeed their fingerprints are all over the JFK assassination. The Brits kill our presidents when they don't get their way in the world. The Brits were are enemies in 1776 when we rebelled against European oligarchy; they were are enemies in 1812 when they attacked us and then invaded and burnt the White House down; they were our enemies in 1861 when Lincoln began to successful defend America against the Brits and their surrogates in the Confederacy; the Brits were are enemies during the 1890-1910 period when British and Confederate leader, the arch traitor Theodore Roosevelt, staged a remarkable coup d'etat reversing the political tendencies of the previous 100 years and set up the modern liberal/conservative paradigm and worked with Edward VII to organize the upcoming WWI, put Woodrow Wilson in the White House as his successor (who simultaneously was the father of modern American liberalism and the head of the KKK while in the White House); more ...

     Posted by shadowknows at 09/08/2009 @ 08:12am

244. ... and they were are chief enemy recognize in the prime war plan of the Department of the Army called War Plan Red which was a defense of the United States against invasion by the Brits; and during WWII, it was Churchill and the British oligarchy that worried FDR more than Stalin; and, still today, they are the chief enemies of America while they bog us down in the "good" and "necessary" war in Afghanistan, subvert our economic development with their anti-science Green ideas (thanks to Van Jones & Al Gore and their ilk), and by trying to impose a "public option" health care program patterned after the British NICE system (now being criticized by the people of England, and by continuing to the central locus of most of the major terrorist groups in the world, and by organizing the upcoming Arab States/Israeli war on Iran; and should Obama ever be forced by a growing anti-war movement to withdraw from Afghanistan (I am not holding my breath) then surely a British bullseye will be painted on his back. And as to the so-called "special relationship", the British people are good people and we should always be friends with them but if we are to be adults in this world and not continue to be brainwashed by the anglophile oligarchy in this country ( in both the Republican and Democratic parties) we must recognize that the Brits and their schemes for global governance are the chief enemies of America today. Of course, many of you won't believe any of this because you are either anglophile in your worldview or to stubborn to do your own research and discover that your world view is wrong. And yes, many of the netroots policy makers in the Obama administration are in the pay of British and British empire oriented oligarchs. This certainly included until recently, Van Jones.

     Posted by shadowknows at 09/08/2009 @ 08:28am

245. Posted by shadowknows at 09/08/2009 @ 08:28am

     Either high satire...

     or a LaRoucher.

     heheh

     Posted by Mask at 09/08/2009 @ 08:55am

246. BTW, on-topic...wonder if any of the Beck-heads can explain why Glenn doesn't invite Van Jones onto his show?

     or is Crying Man claiming that "I've asked and Jones is afraid to face me"...a bald-faced lie?

     Posted by Mask at 09/08/2009 @ 08:57am

247. BECK HAS MUCH MORE IMPORTANT ISSUES TO USE HIS TIME FOR UNLIKE YOU MASK WHO SITS AROUND IN THIER UNDERWEAR IN HIS MOMMIES BASEMENT CUTTING AND PASTING EVERYONE ELSES POSTS FROM YEARS AGO...NOW IF BECK INTERVIEWED YOU THAT MIGHT BE INTERESTING JUST TO SEE HOW MUCH A LIBERAL CAN BE SUCH A TOTAL LOSER

     Posted by libzRfreaks2 at 09/08/2009 @ 09:04am

248. Obama should has stuck by his man. Posted by johnuw93 at 09/08/2009 @ 12:01am | ignore this person | warn this person

     some battles are best not fought. Obama has bigger things on his plate, and he was correct in eliminating the irritant.

     it is Obama's administration which averted a global financial melt down. everyone knows it. that alone makes his presidency a success. the repugs know it too. their chance in 2010 are greatly diminished by this success.

     Posted by emile duBois at 09/08/2009 @ 09:05am

249. Van Jones is a terrible loss,

     nonsense. he did not die. he is free to work outside the white house, and will no doubt continue to make a contribution.

     Posted by emile duBois at 09/08/2009 @ 09:07am

250. Van Jones seems dumb. Posted by bleedingheart at 09/07/2009 @ 7:49pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     his resume says otherwise, and surely puts your "achievements" to shame.

     you don't seem dumb, you are. as you have shown many times by your puerile comments.

     Posted by emile duBois at 09/08/2009 @ 09:09am

251. "it is Obama's administration which averted a global financial melt down. everyone knows it"

     AN ABSOLUTE TOTAL FUCKING LIE...ANOTHER OF MANY PROPAGANDA CRAPOLLA BEING PUSHED BY BARRY SOTERO AND HIS MARXISTS BUDDIES..HOWEVER HE IS CREATING A FINANCIAL MELTDOWN FOR THE FUTURE IF HE IS NOT STOPPED PRINTING MONEY AND SPENDING LIKE HE JUST WON THE LOTTERY...HE MUST BE STOPPED

     Posted by libzRfreaks2 at 09/08/2009 @ 09:15am

252. it is Obama's administration which averted a global financial melt down. everyone knows it. that alone makes his presidency a success. the repugs know it too. their chance in 2010 are greatly diminished by this success.

     Posted by emile duBois at 09/08/2009 @ 09:05am

     Tell that to the thousands of Americans with no job and no prospect for a job. Obama handing out money to his netroots mob with the so-called "stimulus" rather than doing anything substantive to actually create jobs has NOT averted a global financial melt down. Continuing to allow Bernake to run his ponzi scheme fraud supporting the US budget has NOT averted a global financial melt down. And in the next few weeks as the fiscal year end reports come out, you, emile duBois, and all your foolish, foolish Obama-loving friends will either have to eat your words or go into hiding. The global financial melt down of the Anglo/Dutch dominated free trade economic system continues and will get worse under Obama/Bernake/netroots neolib leadership. And it doesn't matter if the "repubs", as you call them, or the Dems have an advantage in 2010 as long as the same people are running the same failed economic system under the same strategy for global governance. Again, this is not a recession and not even a depression but a total global breakdown of the anti-American, anti-human Anglo/Dutch free trade system.

     Posted by shadowknows at 09/08/2009 @ 09:25am

253. EXACTLY SHADOW

     Posted by libzRfreaks2 at 09/08/2009 @ 09:29am

254. Looks like I've got a lot of catching up to do. Without having read anything it seems like the SFGate editorial got it exactly right:

     The time for addressing Jones' radical political past was before his confirmation, not after. Surrender was the only option given the other pressing issues facing the administration.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/08/2009 @ 09:31am

255. it is Obama's administration which averted a global financial melt down. everyone knows it. that alone makes his presidency a success. the repugs know it too. their chance in 2010 are greatly diminished by this success.

     Posted by emile duBois at 09/08/2009 @ 09:05am

     This will rank near the top of your worst posts.

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/08/2009 @ 09:31am

256. or a LaRoucher.

     heheh

     Posted by Mask at 09/08/2009 @ 08:55am | ignore this person | warn this person

     When Billy Kristol endorses John Kerry over Pat Buchanan, you know you storm clouds are moving in.

     Say, how is that surge in Afghanistan to put Taliban on its heels working out?

     Posted by OneVote at 09/08/2009 @ 09:35am

257. A question for the Comrades today:

     Why was "The East is Red" replaced with "March of the Volunteers"?

     The East is Red-

     The east is red, the sun is rising China has brought forth a Mao Zedong. He works for the people's welfare. Hurrah, He is the people's great savior.

     Chairman Mao loves the people, He is our guide, To build a new China, Hurrah, he leads us forward!

     The Communist Party is like the sun, Wherever it shines, it is bright. Wherever there is a Communist Party, Hurrah, there the people are liberated!

     Posted by sntauri at 09/08/2009 @ 09:36am

258. Posted by sntauri at 09/08/2009 @ 09:36am | ignore this person | warn this person

     you are a crashing bore. Mao and Stalin are long dead. the world is far more complicated than your stuck in the cold war mentality that you exhibit in your posts.

     Posted by emile duBois at 09/08/2009 @ 09:44am

259. Ah, emile!

     But Van was/is one of these dudes. He seemed to find inspiration in the works of all these guys you deem irrelevant. And just because the cold war is over doesn't mean the ideological struggle is. Collectivism just goes under a different name. But your smart enough to know this.

     Posted by sntauri at 09/08/2009 @ 09:52am

260. '2008: LaRouche on the financial crisis

     In 2008, LaRouche was credited by press in Italy as having forecast the financial crisis of 2007–2009. On December 17, 2008, Ivo Caizzi of Corriere della Sera referred to LaRouche as "the guru politician who, since the nineties, has announced the crash of speculative finances and the need for a New Bretton Woods." The article said that Italian Economics Minister Giulio Tremonti was "an attentive reader" of LaRouche's anti-Free Market and anti-Marxist writings.[114] In a translation on a LaRouche website, Italian Europarliamentarian Mario Borghezio of the Northern League was quoted as calling LaRouche, "an heretical economist who had forecast the financial crisis much in advance, and who has long since developed a lucid and deep analysis of the distortions in the world economic system."[115] Italian Senator Oskar Peterlini, in a July 2009 speech before the Senate, called LaRouche an expert in the field who had predicted the crisis.[116]'

     Wikipedia

     followed by..........

     Europe Seeks to Implement New Bretton Woods Fiat Currency System Currencies / Fiat Currency Oct 22, 2008 - 10:10 AM

     By: Mick_Phoenix

     And the debate is raging in Europe right now as the dollar falls. Many calls to dump the dollar.

     Posted by OneVote at 09/08/2009 @ 09:55am

261. "Mao and Stalin are long dead"

     HMMMMM NOT IF YOU LOOK AT THIS WHITEHOUSE AND ALL THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL CZARS...

     ALONG WITH KARL MARX THEY ARE ALIVE AND WELL IN THIS GOVT....

     Posted by libzRfreaks2 at 09/08/2009 @ 10:02am

262. For anyone still confused by Van Jones and his agenda for his oligarchical masters, just view the video just posted on this site "Van Jones: Environmental Visionary". It evidently will be part of a series of videos in an ongoing exercise in obsequious flattery by The Nation to promote the leading purps in the neolib netroots coalition, those who "work tirelessly" for their Anglo/Dutch oligarchical masters. FOLLOW THE MONEY. Who pays these guys? (Soros and co.) Where did their ideas originate? (political salons in Britain) Why are they all working for global governance? (Oligarchy) Much of the answer is in their own words on their own websites and in their own writings, and now in The Nation's fawning videos of the neolib crowd.

     Posted by shadowknows at 09/08/2009 @ 10:04am

263. But your smart enough to know this. Posted by sntauri at 09/08/2009 @ 09:52am | ignore this person | warn this person

     I'm also smart enough to correct your english. it should read: you're smart enough....

     pathetic, really.

     a poor Tirolean boy correcting the english of a native speaker.

     Posted by emile duBois at 09/08/2009 @ 10:14am

264. Posted by shadowknows at 09/08/2009 @ 10:04am

     Is Lyndon still alive and speechifying out there to whatever auditorium of 300 wacko paranoids he can find...or pretty much sticking to "videos that speak the Truth"?

     Posted by Mask at 09/08/2009 @ 10:16am

265. Mask, you can do better than engage in ad hominem attack and comparing any of the more adult posters on this blog to cultists or cable news talking heads.

     But to do so you will have to be educated.

     Go to the library and read:

     Aristotle and Xenophon on Democracy and Oligarchy by Aristotle, Xenophon the Orator, Xenophon, and The Oxyrhynchus Historian

     The making of the American nation, or, The rise and decline of oligarchy in the West. By J. Arthur Partridge.

     Against Bosses, Against Oligarchies: A Conversation with Richard Rorty by Richard M. Rorty and Kent Puckett

     In Defiance of Oligarchy: The Tory Party 1714-60 (Cambridge Paperback Library) by Linda Colley

     The Southern Oligarchy; An Appeal in Behalf of the Silent Masses of Our Country Against the Despotic Rule of the Few by William H. Skaggs

     Slave oligarchy and its usurpations: speech of Hon. Charles Sumner, November 2, 1855, in Faneuil Hall, Boston, The by Charles Sumner

     The Conflict Of Oligarchy And Democracy: Six Lectures (1885) by James Allanson Picton

     Millionaires and Managers: Structure of U.S. Financial Oligarchy

     The New World Oligarchy: Destroying the United States Through Globalization by John R. Krismer

     The Conflict of Oligarchy and Democracy by James Allanson Picton

     and

     How Did England Become an Oligarchy? by Jonathan Duncan

     A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

     Posted by shadowknows at 09/08/2009 @ 10:38am

266. Posted by emile duBois at 09/08/2009 @ 10:14am

     Thanks for the correction. I make spelling and grammar mistakes. I also make math errors now and then.

     As a reward, I'm posting Van Jones report again in case you missed it above. Perhaps as you read it, you can check for grammar, spelling, and policy errors.

     Reclaiming Revolution http://www.leftspot.com/blog/files/docs/STORMSummation.pdf

     Posted by sntauri at 09/08/2009 @ 10:38am

267. does communist automatically equal "threat"?

     ...

     this is nothing more than glenn beck and fox settling a score. period.

     Posted by darladoon at 09/06/2009 @ 11:14pm

     "Threat?" No, not threat, but dangerously naive.

     Beck and Fox settling scores? I doubt it.

     The first I heard of Jones was Sunday, my wife said something about a resignation. I only got around to reading about him this morning.

     But I doubt it was a score to settle. It seems more like ratings and giving their viewers what they want. The Fox/Beck audience want to believe the worst of President Obama and Fox/Beck uncovered facts and Youtube videos that supported the viewers' prejudices.

     It is exactly the same as The NYT and their stories on Bush 43.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/08/2009 @ 10:39am

268. is there something illegal about being an atheist or a communist?

     Posted by darladoon at 09/06/2009 @ 11:16pm

     No, it's not illegal. Just like being a neo-nazi isn't illegal. We just don't elect very many of them. And we toss them out of appointed positions when we find them.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/08/2009 @ 10:49am

269. he is free to work outside the white house, and will no doubt continue to make a contribution.

     Posted by emile duBois at 09/08/2009 @ 09:07am

     Exactly so! Could it be that Van Jones is just letting the overblown rhetoric get the better of him, but like Robert Barnwell Rhett in the old days is really just a loyal and hqrdworking American who has a problem controlling his mouth?

     Posted by Mistral at 09/08/2009 @ 10:55am

270. Posted by shadowknows at 09/08/2009 @ 10:38am

     Is saying you are a likely supporter of Mr LaRouche an "insult", shadow???

     Posted by Mask at 09/08/2009 @ 11:05am

271. how does communism stand in direct opposition to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

     Posted by darladoon at 09/07/2009 @ 12:26am

     First the definition: The official definition is something related to an economic system of organizing a society where the State owns the means of production.

     Generally it is the maximization of collectivism and, thus, necessarily the minimization of individualism.

     Specifically, Marx's treatise, The Communism Manifesto, speaks of religion being the "opiate of the massess" and thus requires the elimination of organized religion as a threat to the power of the state.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/08/2009 @ 11:07am

272. Specifically, Marx's treatise, The Communism Manifesto, speaks of religion being the "opiate of the massess" and thus requires the elimination of organized religion as a threat to the power of the state.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/08/2009 @ 11:07am

     DARIN,

     Here is a question for you that has the additional merit that it will hit the g-spot of getting ANTISOCIAL foaming at the mouth for the rape and murder of hardened commie Maryknoll nuns: Where does liberation theology and its "preferential option for the poor" fit into ... your theology, adumbrated above? What do you think Marx meant when he characterized the State as "the executive committe of the ruling class"? Was he in seance with the unborn inner child of Ron Paul?

     Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 09/08/2009 @ 11:42am

273. "HMMMMM NOT IF YOU LOOK AT THIS WHITEHOUSE AND ALL THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL CZARS...ALONG WITH KARL MARX THEY ARE ALIVE AND WELL IN THIS GOVT...."

     --- libzRfreaks2 at 09/08/2009 @ 10:02am

     An unrehearsed exchange between LRF2 and OSAMA BIN LADEN

     OBL: Hmmm, I have been reading your posts, LIBZRFREAKS2. And I am thinking about those US forces in 2 major theaters...And here you are verbally assualting the POTUS and CiC! Attacking the very foundation of his legitimacy! Trashing your own government. I approve, LIBZ, yes I approve. Your ranting screeds may merely be a few pin-pricks but with enough pricks, well...we can sap America from rousing its stength. Fine work, LIBZRFREAKS.

     LRF2 (humbly): Your wish is my command, master. I used to feel like a loser but now I am a somebody when I wish ill toward Obama. And yes, I share your rightwing vision of religionism and male chauvinism and gut hatred for America, its deca--deca--

     OBL: Decadence. You mean deacdence.

     LRF2: Yeah, that's the word, thanks. You're so smart. It's...ummm...deca-dunce. Dunce. And freedoms. I hate America's freedom! Hate it!

     OBL (laughs gently, pats LRF2 on the head): Yes, grasshopper, you understand that an America divided is just what we seek (laughs riotously). And with wild-eyed crazies like Beck, a raving psychotic whose own mother and brother killed themselves, carrying water for me as a viciously self-hating American, I believe that much can be done to sap America's will.

     LRF2 (snorting anger): Master, I am your instrument. I hate America! I hate Obama for being like the popular charismatic guy with chicks! And his father isn't even from here! So why do I have to bounce from one janitoring job to another! Why do I always have to pick up for other people! Why!?!? Why!?!?Why?

     Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 09/08/2009 @ 12:05pm

274. does communist automatically equal "threat"?

     Posted by darladoon at 09/06/2009 @ 11:14pm

     is there something illegal about being an atheist or a communist?

     god, you're such an idiot.

     Posted by darladoon at 09/06/2009 @ 11:16pm

     can you define communism, and why communist views are a threat to america?

     Posted by darladoon at 09/07/2009 @ 12:01am

     -------------------

     "Le Livre Noir du Communisme : Crimes, Terreur, Répression," edited by Stéphane Courtois, documents the problems with Communism, from the Ukrainian peasants starved for being politically incorrect to the Tiananmen Square massacre. As it was written in 1997 it doesn't include the most recent news from Tibet or Xinjiang, but even so the book gives a total death count of about 100.000.000.

     Posted by Mistral at 09/08/2009 @ 12:11pm

275. The quotation, in context, reads as follows (emphasis added): Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man--state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.[1]

     Posted by emile duBois at 09/08/2009 @ 12:12pm

276. "Republicans believe they win even when they lose..."

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/08/2009 @ 07:22am

     One definition of a conservaLoser Repugnant is...Someone who whacks a baseball bat gainst his mother's kneecaps to wrest a buck thirty nine from her purse, and then mashes her tongue with the barrell of the bat so she won't tell anyone.

     Then the conserrvaLoser pockets the money and starts yelling loudly, "Help! Help! That black latino guy has beaten up and robbed my mother! Someone help us, help us!"

     ASHLEY TODD who beat herself up and drew a "B" on her cheek ("a black man and Obama supporter did this to me!", she squeeled) is the epitome of these disgusting tendencies to do ill and blame others.

     Sick and troubled ASHLEY TODD is the Repugnant Party. The Repugnant Party is ASHLEY TODD.

     Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 09/08/2009 @ 12:28pm

277. When they say "Communist" they really mean "pro-justice" and fair laws.

     Posted by Frank42 at 09/07/2009 @ 01:27am

     I rarely use the word "communist" becuase it means too many different things here.

     Let's talk about "fair laws". Is a "fair" race one where everybody knows the rules before hand, the official does not create an advantage for one competitor over the other competitors, and everyone has the same opportunity to train as they wish?

     Or is fair race one where every competitor ties for first place? (And ties for last?)

     Is it a fair race if one competitor is faster than the other competitors by an accident of birth?

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/08/2009 @ 12:32pm

278. It's very encouraging to see how many from the far right are reading The Nation. Though they may disagree now, sooner or later the light will go on and they will see there's room in their brains for new and better ideas. Welcome aboard! Hope you're subscribing!

     Posted by Larry Thorson at 09/08/2009 @ 12:35pm

279. "We got big time buyers remorse and it will get worse."

     --YourJomamma at 09/06/2009 @ 3:32pm

     Question: When will YJ get the "buyer's remorse" over the invasion that he "bought" for us with his voteS (note plural) for George W Loser?

     George W Loser whined and moaned about ReaganBush's favorite dictator/military aid slut, Saddam; and about Saddam's, by 2003, 100% non-existent arsenal in a country whose borders he could not even rasie a finger to defend from regular bombing raids. And YJ's totally undignified response? The blubbering pansy shat his pants with blind fear, as if through a fire hose, whenever George W Loser demanded it of him.

     Buyer's regret? YJ is a sucker's sucker who childishly believes every half-assed hoax ever minted (Vince Foster, North-Gore-OBL). Because YJ is so easily manipulated and flattered by rightwing pols who treat the likes of him like the town "ho" at election time, we are paying up to the tune of $3 trillion. It will take a generation or two for us all to pay off. And it's because YJ and his disgusting ilk were stoooopid enought to vote for Loser 2x and to believe every whacked-out fairy tale farted out of the Beltway by the neoClowns.

     So, if he pops his meaty skull up around here, be sure to ask YJ what he is doing to pay off George W Loser's failed vanity invasion that YJ voted for & that YJ loudly supported to the hilt. YJ is a dime-a-dozen type of nobody, yes, but what we will all be in the lurch due to his miserable stupidity for trillions of "benjamins" (& counting).

     What is YJ doing to pay up? To pay his share? Or does he just expect to pass the bill for his lame-brained, half assed sucker mentality onto the rest of the public, no questions asked?

     He talks of buyer's regret?? My ass, YJ, the sucker's sucker.

     Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 09/08/2009 @ 12:48pm

280. Posted by OneVote at 09/07/2009 @ 09:04am

     I am going to use Occam's Razor to try to answer your questions.

     Why were standard operating procedures for dealing with hijacked airliners not followed that day?

     ** Because SOP is to ask the hijackers their demands. Once they started using the planes as bombs it was clear that the SOP were useless.

     Why were the extensive missile batteries and air defenses reportedly deployed around the Pentagon not activated during the attack?

     ** Because SOP was to use these for attack from foreign aircraft. The opporators did not recieve clearance to fire on civilian aircraft not proven to be a threat until after impact.

     Why did the Secret Service allow Bush to complete his elementary school visit...?

     ** Because the first place could have been an accident. It wasn't proof until the second plane. At that point he didn't want to create panic.

     Why hasn't a single person been fired, penalized, or reprimanded for the gross incompetence we witnessed that day?

     ** Just because something bad happens doesn't prove gross incompetence. The human mind is incapable of projecting every possible contingency. The airport safety controls employed at the time seemed a reasonable balance between safety and freedom at the time. Who, specifically, was incompetent? D

     Why haven't authorities in the U.S. and abroad published the results of multiple investigations into trading...?

     ** Maybe because they are still tracking the culprits? Maybe because they don't want people to know they are being tracked?

     Why has Sibel Edmonds, ... been publicly silenced ...?

     ** Same answer as above.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/08/2009 @ 1:04pm

281. Posted by OneVote at 09/07/2009 @ 09:04am

     How could Flight 77, which reportedly hit the Pentagon, have flown back towards Washington D.C. for 40 minutes without being detected by the FAA's radar or the even superior radar possessed by the US military?

     ** Who says it was? Again, you need clearance to fire a missle at a civilian aircraft full of civilians.

     How were the FBI and CIA able to release the names and photos of the alleged hijackers within hours...?

     ** Because the airlines all keep a passenger log for each flight. All the hijackers would have needed passports and passport photos are stored in a database.

     What happened to the over 20 documented warnings given our government ...?

     ** "Documented warning" includes things like, "We're seeing increased chatter." Not one single warning said, "On 9/11 four airliners will be hijacked and flown into buildings.

     Why did the Bush administration cover up the fact that the head of the Pakistani intelligence agency was in Washington the week of 9/11 and reportedly had $100,000 wired to Mohamed Atta, considered the ringleader of the hijackers?

     ** If it was covered up, how did you hear about it?

     Why did the 911 Commission fail to address most of the questions posed by the families of the victims, ...?

     ** Because conspiracy theorist can never run out of questions, ever. It is impossible to answer an infinite amount of questions.

     Why was Philip Zelikow chosen to be the Executive Director of the ostensibly independent 911 Commission although he had co-authored a book with Condoleezza Rice?

     ** Who the fuck cares?

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/08/2009 @ 1:05pm

282. How were the FBI and CIA able to release the names and photos of the alleged hijackers within hours...?

     ** Because the airlines all keep a passenger log for each flight. All the hijackers would have needed passports and passport photos are stored in a database.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/08/2009 @ 1:05pm

     Was the question how did they identify the hijackers? The passengers called loved ones from the plane and said middle eastern men from first class hijacked the planes.

     The FBI just needed the passenger manifest and got passport photos of every first class passenger named, "Mohamaed".

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/08/2009 @ 1:09pm

283. I think that Alex Jones may be right about Obama being the next puppet for the New World Order. The most important issues we have are bringing The Bush Administration down for their involvement on 9/11/2001, their war crimes and crimes against humanity, and HEALTHCARE !!! So far he has not impressed me at all. The troops are still there and he is going to increase them in Afghanistan. Van Jones, a very capable and courageous man is now gone because Obama along with the Democrats are beginning to wilt in front of our eyes. Let's see if he gets his healthcare bill passed. If not then I do not see a very positive future for our nation.

     The Bush Family and their cohorts are a very powerful entity and have been since they offed J.F.K. and R.F.K.. Obama has the power to do this world a great justice but I do not think he has the cajones or the courage to martyr himself for this most important cause. Most unfortunate for us and the rest of the world !!! I do hope that I am wrong about this. If he gets the healthcare bill passed the way he wants it then maybe he will begin a roll that the Republicans and Neo-Cons will be CRUSHED and never be able to recover !!! Then this world can begin a 'New World Peace' that will benifit the Entire Human Race !!! That will include a lot of de-programming of Republican and Neo-Con followers. That in itself will be a HUGE UNDERTAKING !!! But a Must !!! Good things take a long time but they are worth it !!! So I hope Alex Jones is wrong and Obama grabs this moment in history to save the world !!!

     Posted by roostertlc at 09/08/2009 @ 1:26pm

284. Posted by shadowknows at 09/08/2009 @ 10:38am

     Is saying you are a likely supporter of Mr LaRouche an "insult", shadow???

     Posted by Mask at 09/08/2009 @ 11:05am | ignore this person | warn this person

     Yes, Mask, I am no supporter of LaRouche or any other cultist. See my remarks on the blog on this site "Obama's Opportunity" and "Obama Readies Afghan Escalation" As to whom on the national scene I like at the moment, it is Dennis Kucinich. Not completely, but quite a bit.

     Posted by shadowknows at 09/08/2009 @ 2:09pm

285. I think this article is spot-on in its assessment that this is another case of Obama simply not fighting. What the hell happened? The Right's calling Obama a Nazi because of a push for healthcare reform - does he think that there will be some miracle by which the Right will transubstantiate into a party that actually does anything but smear and destroy for the benefit of the 1%? This will never end until there's Democratic spine. The Right doesnt think the Democrats will fight, and frankly they have no reason to think that they would. I pray that Obama realizes that the people who put him in office would much prefer he fight and win -- or fight and lose - - than surrender and lose anyway. Maybe he should harness a little of his predecessor's ignorance, hostility, and outright disdain for the opposition.

     Posted by ruhroh at 09/08/2009 @ 3:02pm

286. You closet Marxists are so stunned by the rising up of Americans, that you are reduced to become Lenninists! That is, your only tool is now the lie. Van Jones signed a petition claiming that Bush *deliberately* allowed 9/11 to occur.

     Is that what *you* believe, Mr. Nichols? No, of course not. You know it's a lie and you know you are lying about Van Jones. The lie is all you have now.

     Posted by zook54 at 09/08/2009 @ 3:40pm

287. the rising up of Americans,

     hahahahahaha.

     I'll say it again: hahahahahaha.

     Posted by emile duBois at 09/08/2009 @ 4:08pm

288. americans stopped rising up, once the remote control was invented.

     Posted by emile duBois at 09/08/2009 @ 4:08pm

289. You closet Marxists are so stunned by the rising up of Americans, that you are reduced to become Lenninists!

     I am proud to be a Marxist,(Groucho and his brothers, AND a Lennonist,(John)

     Posted by emile duBois at 09/08/2009 @ 4:11pm

290. I'll trade you one 9/11 conspiracist for two climate change deniers.

     Posted by emile duBois at 09/08/2009 @ 4:12pm

291. A simple question for those who keep calling it a Republican smear campaign:

     So what were the smears? Jones apologized twice for the things that he finally resigned over. Why do you apologize for smears?

     Name something Jones was accused of that is demonstrably not true. Not "defensible," but "in factual error."

     Posted by Mgmax at 09/08/2009 @ 4:33pm

292. Michael Barone had a great quote summing up American politics in a single sentence: "There are more conservatives than Republicans, and more Democrats than liberals."

     What that means is, every generation the Left thinks it's been given a mandate to do something, and learns the hard way that a lot of Democrats (unionized Catholics in Ohio and Michigan, say) are way more conservative than they are.

     The Republicans aren't defeating Obama's grand social-democrat schemes. Democrats are. It's how it always happens. Now back to the woodshed for you for 20 years till it's time to learn the lesson again.

     Posted by Mgmax at 09/08/2009 @ 4:37pm

293. Posted by Mgmax at 09/08/2009 @ 4:37pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     good point, but it's not hopeless. Obama did get elected vs another dem choice.

     Posted by emile duBois at 09/08/2009 @ 5:15pm

294. If hateful statements were energy, there would be no shortage in the world after the comments here. We should not be surprised about the hatefulness expressed towards Obama and Jones. Where I live, the Clintons are amongst the most hated people in the world. Who can forget how Richard Clarke was villified after writing Against All Enemies? And he is a white man who worked for Bush! Clarke exposed how Bush was asleep at the wheel while the CIA warned him about Bin Laden. His reward was an extreme right-wing attack. Anybody surprised at the hateful response to Jones and Obama is not paying attention. It is easy to convince humans to hate people not like them. Women could not vote for most of this country's existence. Blacks could not vote in the South for even longer. Most people have health care and don't care about those who don't. What is on TV? Pass the remote and spread the hate. It's the American way.

     Posted by ncc5 at 09/08/2009 @ 6:00pm

295. it is Obama's administration which averted a global financial melt down. everyone knows it. that alone makes his presidency a success. the repugs know it too. their chance in 2010 are greatly diminished by this success. Posted by emile duBois at 09/08/2009 @ 09:05am

     This will rank near the top of your worst posts. Posted by antisocialist at 09/08/2009 @ 09:31am | ignore this person | warn this person

     --but antisocialist, don't you know that "everyone knows it"...so it HAS to be true!

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 6:09pm

296. you have the cursing the darkness down, now light the candle.

     Posted by emile duBois at 09/08/2009 @ 8:10pm

297. you have the cursing the darkness down, now light the candle. Posted by emile duBois at 09/08/2009 @ 8:10pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --sounds mystical...you must fancy yourself to be a smarty-pants!

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 8:34pm

298. "ASHLEY TODD who beat herself up and drew a "B" on her cheek ("a black man and Obama supporter did this to me!", she squeeled) is the epitome of these disgusting tendencies to do ill and blame others. Sick and troubled ASHLEY TODD is the Repugnant Party. The Repugnant Party is ASHLEY TODD." Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 09/08/2009 @ 12:28pm

     Crystal Mangum, who falsely accused 3 Duke lacrosse of rape, simply because they were white, male, and perceived to be affluent, is the epitome of Dem's tendencies to blame white males for any and all of the ills in the US. CRYSTAL MANGUM has PHIL MCCREVICE'S back. PHIL MCCREVICE has CRYSTAL MANGUM'S back. Stick it to "THE MAN", Phil!

     Posted by twillie at 09/08/2009 @ 9:14pm

299. Thanks for working to stay clear thinking. I am really saddened by this episode. I worked so hard last year to get Barack Obama elected, like millions of others. And now has it come to Murdoch's minions are able to nullify all the work, hope, and great expectations?! Were we duped last year by then Senator Obama and his team? It's beginning to seem so. Or are they indeed just weak kneed, and need some grit. America needs change in the Administrations actions regardless to pull the country out of the disaster it's in. Ican at least say as of yestrday report was 64-65 Progressive Dems in the Hose ill NOT vote for a health are bill without a p o- (public option) Those elected officials have that grit. Also - from a site tracking fatalities of unnecessary war making , which is more than it was a year ago and sure not what I expectd from an Obama win a year ago. These dead soldiers truly died in vain in my mind---- G Reichel 5,130 Total Fatalities Operation Iraqi Freedom: 4,326 Operation Enduring Freedom: 804 (Updated September 7, 2009)

     Posted by gpreichel at 09/08/2009 @ 11:12pm

300. Van Jones is an admitted Communist. Do you fools realize what that is? Did any of you come from Eastern Europe or a former Soviet country? Did any of you follow such famous communists as Pol Pot, Josef Stalin or Mao? What would JFK feel about Van Jones? I think he would PISS on HIM.

     Posted by Dencal26 at 09/08/2009 @ 11:42pm

301. Posted by Dencal26 at 09/08/2009 @ 11:42pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     hey let's use a dead guy for a political prop. JFK would have pissed on you. howzat?

     Posted by emile duBois at 09/09/2009 @ 08:31am

302. Posted by Dencal26 at 09/08/2009 @ 11:42pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     hey let's use a dead guy for a political prop. JFK would have pissed on you. howzat?

     Posted by emile duBois at 09/09/2009 @ 08:31am | ignore this person | warn this person

     --only if he has something left after pissing on you emile...maybe he can go fill up with a couple dr. pepper's with forrest gump first so you get nice and wet...

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 08:52am

303. If anyone's counting, I agree with Nichols. Until the left starts doling it out like the right, it'll just keep coming and many will believe we haven't a good defense.

     I'm always amazed how otherwise reasonable people can't see how demented the right is.

     Posted by AngryPancho at 09/09/2009 @ 10:55pm

304. If anyone's counting, I agree with Nichols. Until the left starts doling it out like the right, it'll just keep coming and many will believe we haven't a good defense.

     I'm always amazed how otherwise reasonable people can't see how demented the right is.

     Posted by AngryPancho at 09/09/2009 @ 10:55pm