Who is Van Jones?

[Mabus]

Sure, he has been called our "Green Czar", and is technically "Special Advisor for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation" to the White House, and controls the strings on $30,000,000,000 of "stimulus" money, but what did he consider himself?

"I was a communist." -Van Jones

He was also active with STORM (Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement), which was an anarchist/communist/Marxist/Black Nationalist movement.

Maybe we also need Bill Ayers for Education Czar, or perhaps Jeremiah Wright could be the Faith-based Initiative Czar.

Strange days.

[Latrinsorm]

Do you have there in your hand a list, Mabus, a list of names that have been made known to you as being members of the Communist Party?

[Apotheosis]

VanJones is another tinfoil hat wearer..

[ClydeR]

Do you have there in your hand a list, Mabus, a list of names that have been made known to you as being members of the Communist Party?

There's no need to attack Mabus. He's just the messenger. Mabus has lighted the spark which is resulting in a moral uprising and will end only when the whole sorry mess of twisted, warped thinkers are swept from the national scene so that we may have a new birth of honesty and decency in government.

[Mabus]

Do you have there in your hand a list, Mabus, a list of names that have been made known to you as being members of the Communist Party?
No, I don't.

While I would defend his right to his beliefs and associations they should also be public, no? He is a member of the current administration.

If he holds these beliefs and was vetted by the administration, and then given a high advisory role in which he can affect over $30 billion in tax payer money, then this should be known.

Why is knowing the truth about a high adviser of the president problematic to you?

[Parkbandit]

It's hilarious that people still don't understand what Obama is all about.

You don't surround yourself with communists, socialists, black liberation theologists, marxists, etc.. if you don't like their message.

[Latrinsorm]

Why is knowing the truth about a high adviser of the president problematic to you?It was a McCarthy reference, which I had thought was going to work a lot better until I got an actual McCarthy quote. 1950s rhetoric is pretty bland.

[Mabus]

It was a McCarthy reference, which I had thought was going to work a lot better until I got an actual McCarthy quote. 1950s rhetoric is pretty bland.
I understood the reference, and even caught a show on PBS late last night dealing with blacklisted screen writers.

Like I stated, I would defend Van Jones right to his political beliefs and associations.

What I do not defend is his ability to spend taxpayer dollars in pursuit of those same beliefs and associations while being an appointed adviser within our federal government.

Can you imagine a GOP adviser, let's say under GW, that had stated "I was a fascist." and had belonged to a revolutionary organization committed to carving out a whites-only homeland in the USA?

What about this person then being given billions to fund his interests?

Would it be "news"?

Would they have made it through the vetting process?

Would anyone have spoken up?

Just asking.

[Tsa`ah]

He was also active with STORM (Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement), which was an anarchist/communist/Marxist/Black Nationalist movement.

Fox reports it and you run with it. Stellar.

Get your facts straight though. STORM departed from being ethno-centric with an anarchist twist ... nor were they Marxist ... while Jones was a member.


Maybe we also need Bill Ayers for Education Czar, or perhaps Jeremiah Wright could be the Faith-based Initiative Czar.

Is this what it has come to? Digging up Fox/Rush claims left over from the campaign? How long before you suggest that Ayers is a murderer and Wright is a black supremist?


Strange days.

I'd call it a pathetic smear.


No, I don't.

While I would defend his right to his beliefs and associations they should also be public, no? He is a member of the current administration.

If he holds these beliefs and was vetted by the administration, and then given a high advisory role in which he can affect over $30 billion in tax payer money, then this should be known.

Why is knowing the truth about a high adviser of the president problematic to you?

There's the truth ... and then there's truth not based in reality.

Ever watch or read "A Time to Kill"? The court room scene where the DA is presenting the "truth" to discredit the defense's expert witness?

That's pretty much what you're doing when you rabidly jerk off to Fox/Rush .. et al, and then run around regurgitating what you heard.


It's hilarious that people still don't understand what Obama is all about.

You don't surround yourself with communists, socialists, black liberation theologists, marxists, etc.. if you don't like their message.

It's hilarious because you, and those like you, survive and exist today because of socialism yet scream and demonize it. It's sheer ignorance.


What I do not defend is his ability to spend taxpayer dollars in pursuit of those same beliefs and associations while being an appointed adviser within our federal government.

Yet you have no proof that he is. His job is to help produce green jobs/energy ... what evidence do you have that he's only steering those funds to the dreaded commies and Marxists?


Can you imagine a GOP adviser, let's say under GW, that had stated "I was a fascist." and had belonged to a revolutionary organization committed to carving out a whites-only homeland in the USA?

You're attempting to paint Jones as a racist ... still. It's ignorant.

However ... where were you with this sort of argument when Bush was funneling tax dollars into faith based/administered programs?


What about this person then being given billions to fund his interests?

Jones hasn't. This is your attempt to promote the "commie" boogey man. This is nothing more than you running with another page from some "conservative" strat group or think tank. This is more of the divisive bile in the form of red meat that you love to suck up and then shit out in the form of text based diarrhea.

[Latrinsorm]

Like I stated, I would defend Van Jones right to his political beliefs and associations.

What I do not defend is his ability to spend taxpayer dollars in pursuit of those same beliefs and associations while being an appointed adviser within our federal government.Is it that he's appointed rather than elected?
Can you imagine a GOP adviser, let's say under GW, that had stated "I was a fascist." and had belonged to a revolutionary organization committed to carving out a whites-only homeland in the USA?

What about this person then being given billions to fund his interests?

Would it be "news"?

Would they have made it through the vetting process?

Would anyone have spoken up?

Just asking.The first thing is that I can't find any reference to STORM involving or supporting black nationalism, let alone anarchy. (I guess the zeroth thing is that a group can't be both anarchist and nationalist, but I digress.) Perhaps this is why you feel no one has "spoken up" - whoever notified you of these concerns has been creative with history.

Second, fascism is inherently totalitarian and repressive. You may disagree with communism's methods or previous implementations, but you must agree that it is inherently only an economic system, no more repressive than capitalism or totalitarian than the laissez-faire gospel. Furthermore, I would have no more issue with the fact that someone was a fascist than the fact that the late Strom Thurmond was a bigot - people change, and eventually even rational skepticism of redemption becomes paranoia. America is the land of second chances, especially (or I should say almost exclusively) for public figures.

[Gelston]

I don't like some of the various quotes I've found that are attributed to him. He was younger when he uttered them, and perhaps people do change. All the same they make for easy criticism of him. (I would post them here but I'm on an iPhone, no Internet until the fifth.)

[Mabus]

Is it that he's appointed rather than elected?
That is one thing, sure. If he had to place his history before the citizens it is doubtful he could get elected to federal office anywhere (except San Francisco and Chicago perhaps).


The first thing is that I can't find any reference to STORM involving or supporting black nationalism,
That was a quote by Van Jones himself. He said he was a "rowdy black nationalist".

But you could also listen to him speak about some of his racial beliefs in his own words:

Green Jobs Czar Van Jones Says White Polluters Steered Poison Into Minority Communities - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6gOmIalJVw)

"...the white polluters and the, uh, white environmentalists are essentially steering poison into the people of color communities..." -Van Jones


let alone anarchy. (I guess the zeroth thing is that a group can't be both anarchist and nationalist, but I digress.)
From Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement - Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_Together_to_Organize_a_Revolutionary_Move ment):

STORM initially included anarchists, communists and revolutionary nationalists, but after some struggle the anarchists left and STORM become more communist-oriented.


Perhaps this is why you feel no one has "spoken up" - whoever notified you of these concerns has been creative with history.
When an "adviser" is picked without citizen or Senate vetting it is hard to hear about their views at all.


Second, fascism is inherently totalitarian and repressive.
It could be termed "a merger of the corporate and the state", to paraphrase Mussolini, who has been called "the father of modern fascism".

We certainly do not see any mergers between corporations and the state, do we?


You may disagree with communism's methods or previous implementations, but you must agree that it is inherently only an economic system,
If we go by the real-world implementations of Communism, Marxism and Socialism on large societies we can clearly see that it is every bit (if not even more) as repressive, totalitarian and genocidal then real-world fascist implementations.

You must agree, no?


no more repressive than capitalism or totalitarian than the laissez-faire gospel.
Are you sincere in this belief?

Capitalism can be repressive when it is unregulated and unbridled, but only if you have no capital or are unwilling to work is it repressive in this nation (the USA).

You would state that the US economic system is as repressive as Stalin's USSR or Mao's China?


Furthermore, I would have no more issue with the fact that someone was a fascist than the fact that the late Strom Thurmond was a bigot - people change, and eventually even rational skepticism of redemption becomes paranoia.
Nice point.

What happened to Trent Lott for making one statement at Thurmond's 100th birthday party?


"When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years, either."-Trentt Lott

Lott was forced to resign from being Senate Republican Leader for that statement about his past, and view of what would have ensued.

It was a terribly unfeeling, unthinking statement on Lott's part, and he (an elected official) rightly resigned his leadership post after being crucified by the press, blogs, his own party and the democrats.

Van Jones should resign. He is a blot on this "post-racial presidency" at a time it cannot afford it.

[Latrinsorm]

But you could also listen to him speak about some of his racial beliefs in his own words:

Green Jobs Czar Van Jones Says White Polluters Steered Poison Into Minority Communities - YouTubeI'm baffled. We agree that he says "Wait a minute, you're regulating, but you're not regulating equally", right? I think any amplification of what he says after that is evidence of observer bias more than evidence of speaker bias.
That was a quote by Van Jones himself. He said he was a "rowdy black nationalist".He also said he was "bookish". That does not mean every group he belonged to is bookish, or supports bookishness.

It is still literally impossible for a group to support anarchy and nationalism, regardless of its membership. You might as well describe a group as atheist Christians.
You would state that the US economic system is as repressive as Stalin's USSR or Mao's China?I would say that the US economic system is more actually-socialist than either. (There's probably a joke about Socialist-In-Name-Only and China to be made there.) All of Stalin's systems were Stalinist first and anything else a distant second. Mao was more or less the same, but at least he had a misguided Chinese supremacist bent (which is a hell of a way to improve). Nobody would rationally describe either as "republics", why "socialist"?
What happened to Trent Lott for making one statement at Thurmond's 100th birthday party?Notice how the esteemed Sen. Lott said "we are proud of it" and expressed continuing support for the positions in question. Sen. Thurmond expressed remorse over his past views, and if he wasn't a hundred years old would probably have been immediately appalled by Sen. Lott's statements.

[Mabus]

I'm baffled. We agree that he says "Wait a minute, you're regulating, but you're not regulating equally", right?
No, he specifically states that not only "white" polluters but also "white" environmentalists are purposefully polluting the communities of other races.

His assertion is racist. Watch the video. It is his own words.

Do you agree with it?



It is still literally impossible for a group to support anarchy and nationalism, regardless of its membership. You might as well describe a group as atheist Christians.
Take that up with Van Jones, as he was a member of the group. I was not a member of the group.


I would say that the US economic system is more actually-socialist than either.
We have been heading more in that direction thanks (mainly) to FDR, Johnson and Nixon.

We are however not as Socialist as China, nor as Socialist as the former USSR.


(There's probably a joke about Socialist-In-Name-Only and China to be made there.) All of Stalin's systems were Stalinist first and anything else a distant second. Mao was more or less the same, but at least he had a misguided Chinese supremacist bent (which is a hell of a way to improve). Nobody would rationally describe either as "republics", why "socialist"?
It could be because they were heading toward Communism, and had a high degree of state-control of most means of production. It could also be because they modeled their systems after Marxist ideals, and one (USSR) even included their word for "Socialist" in their name.

But you can say they were not Socialist, and I would tend to agree that they did not reach "ideal Socialism" (as I have stated before that Socialism and Communism cannot work in large societies). But they are real-world examples of Socialist countries.


Notice how the esteemed Sen. Lott said "we are proud of it" and expressed continuing support for the positions in question. Sen. Thurmond expressed remorse over his past views, and if he wasn't a hundred years old would probably have been immediately appalled by Sen. Lott's statements.
Notice how he also resigned his position?

Once realizing he had made a mistake, and knowing his presence could be harmful to getting his party's agenda accomplished, he bent to the political and societal pressures to admit his mistake and step down.

Will Van Jones have that much integrity?

[Parkbandit]

I don't like some of the various quotes I've found that are attributed to him. He was younger when he uttered them, and perhaps people do change. All the same they make for easy criticism of him. (I would post them here but I'm on an iPhone, no Internet until the fifth.)

I know.. much of the worse quotes came all the way back in 2008 and 2009 back when he was a young boy.

[Hulkein]

It's hilarious that people still don't understand what Obama is all about.

You don't surround yourself with communists, socialists, black liberation theologists, marxists, etc.. if you don't like their message.

You know I really didn't buy into this much during the election but it's starting to get ridiculous. I really wouldn't care as much if I didn't just watch the 8 years of Bush's presidency where anyone the president shook hands with was scrutinized. If that scrutiny led to ANYTHING remotely bad the MSM would pounce on it in such a ridiculous way. I really am annoyed at the hypocrisy more than anything.

[Hulkein]

I'd call it a pathetic smear.

That's a shock. You and a few others are the MSM that I mentioned in my previous post of this forum.

[Gelston]

I know.. much of the worse quotes came all the way back in 2008 and 2009 back when he was a young boy.

I suppose in that case he hasn't changed at all?

[Parkbandit]

I suppose in that case he hasn't changed at all?

So you think that Van Jones has changed in the past year or so since he uttered this?:

"The white polluters and the white environmentalists are essentially steering poison into the people of color communities." -Jan '08

Wake the fuck up.

Granted, there are many people on this forum and in this country that welcomes change like this. Socialism, Communism, Marxism... it's all great to them.. and capitalism is evil.

I just happen to not be one of them.

So let's talk about those systems... but don't fucking play the game of "maybe he's changed".. because you are being intellectually dishonest.

[Gelston]

Now you are putting words in my mouth. I would "wake the fuck up" but I've been deployed with no tv or Internet so yes I missed that stuff. I'm sorry I'm unable to create opinions based on information I wasn't aware of.

[Warriorbird]

You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?

I always like a little Welch in these moments.

EDIT:

Associative image fixed.

[Latrinsorm]

No, he specifically states that not only "white" polluters but also "white" environmentalists are purposefully polluting the communities of other races.

His assertion is racist. Watch the video. It is his own words.I don't agree that including a racial adjective makes someone's statements racist.
Take that up with Van Jones, as he was a member of the group.As far as I know, Mr. Jones has not described the group as "anarchist/communist/Marxist/Black Nationalist". You have. Defend your statement.
It could also be because they modeled their systems after Marxist ideals, and one (USSR) even included their word for "Socialist" in their name.This is exactly my point: BOTH countries included the word "Republic" in their names, but you can see how they were in no way republican countries. Stalin's USSR sought a "high degree of state-control" in everything. That "economics" falls under "everything" is a coincidence, not evidence of a primary goal. This is totalitarianism.

The United States, on the other hand, specifically redistributes wealth for the purpose of universal welfare. There are no secret police in America waiting to disappear you to a gulag for having a crucifix in your house. This is socialism.
Notice how he also resigned his position?Again, because his views were expressed in the present tense. When Van Jones says "I am a rowdy black nationalist", the comparison will make sense.

[Mabus]

I don't agree that including a racial adjective makes someone's statements racist.
So if someone (not black) said:
"The black men and black churches are purposefully filling our cities with crime and lies."
...it would not be racist to you?

STORM protested CA's voter approved Prop 187 (Denial of social welfare benefits to illegal aliens), which it called "racist, anti-immigrant". Seems that Van Jones organizations have a different view then you.

You one of those "if you are not currently the majority race you cannot be racist" folks?


As far as I know, Mr. Jones has not described the group as "anarchist/communist/Marxist/Black Nationalist". You have. Defend your statement.
The "black nationalist" was from Van Jones humself, as was already stated.

The rest is from news sources (some in the Bay area) and Wikipedia and other sources.

Attempting to disprove the statements with more then "I don't think" and "it cannot be" based on your personal opinion does not trump those sources.

If you want to read about STORM, read their book:
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/10717234/Reclaiming-Revolution-history-summation-and-lessons-from-the-work-of-STORM

Here is an excerpt:

To truly understand something, you must understand its context. So to understand STORM, you must understand the global and national political stage on which we acted. For it is the material realities of the world – not well-intentioned but wishful revolutionary thinking – that determine what revolutionaries can achieve.

STORM emerged in a moment of deep crisis for the international Left and growing momentum for sections of the imperialist class. Our exis-tence was book-ended by the Bush regimes – George Sr. (1988-1992) and George Jr. (2000-present). This was an extremely difficult period for the Left, both inside and outside the United States. Our history – as well as our successes and errors – must be understood in this context.

International Context
In the early 1990s, the international Left was in jeopardy. The Soviet Union had fallen in 1989. China was turning towards capitalism. And although very few people from our generation identified with Soviet “socialism,” the fall of the world’s first and most powerful socialist nation undermined the material strength and public legitimacy of the Left around the world.

That should deal with the communist/Marxist just fine.

I will withdraw Wikipedia's (and other source's) "anarchist" portion.

Now we are left with a radical Marxist/Communist/Socialist organization, of which Van Jones ( a self admitted "angry black nationalist") was a member and leader.

That better?

[Latrinsorm]

So if someone (not black) said:
"The black men and black churches are purposefully filling our cities with crime and lies."
...it would not be racist to you?Racism is a mindset, not a neon sign. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. made plenty of statements that could sound "racist" coming from someone else, especially out of context. Take "The Negro needs the white man", "I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate", "In the midst of blatant injustices inflicted upon the Negro, I have watched white churches stand on the sideline and merely mouth pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities.". Dr. King wasn't saying that ALL white churches stood on the sidelines, or that ALL white moderates were disappointing, or that either failure was a function of their whiteness. React less, think more.
STORM protested CA's voter approved Prop 187 (Denial of social welfare benefits to illegal aliens), which it called "racist, anti-immigrant". Seems that Van Jones organizations have a different view then you.This statement is unclear, please rephrase.
Now we are left with a radical Marxist/Communist/Socialist organization, of which Van Jones ( a self admitted "angry black nationalist") was a member and leader.

That better?Yes, it is entirely plausible for an organization to be Marxist, Communist and Socialist, which makes it much better than the previous and wholly implausible characterization.

[Valthissa]

I don't think Jones previous statements are defensible.

10 minutes with google should convince any but the most partisan of this fact.

I also don't see this as reflecting very much on Obama. This happens in every administration.

[Mabus]

Racism is a mindset, not a neon sign. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. made plenty of statements that could sound "racist" coming from someone else, especially out of context. Take "The Negro needs the white man", "I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate", "In the midst of blatant injustices inflicted upon the Negro, I have watched white churches stand on the sideline and merely mouth pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities.". Dr. King wasn't saying that ALL white churches stood on the sidelines, or that ALL white moderates were disappointing, or that either failure was a function of their whiteness. React less, think more.

Dr. King also was not stating that members of a specific race were poisoning others of other races. Van Jones has stated this, and that it was being done "purposefully".



This statement is unclear, please rephrase.
The statement was clear, but perhaps not to you.

A ballot initiative was put forward to not spend state monies on the care of illegal immigrants. It passed (by 58.93% of the vote).

Van Jones, and the organization STORM, characterized the initiative as "racist". Race was not even mentioned in the initiative, but it instead dealt with illegal immigrants.

The law was allowed to die in mediation before the 9th Circuit appeal (dropped by then Gov. Gray Davis) after a judge in the US District Court for the Central District of California found it unconstitutional.


Yes, it is entirely plausible for an organization to be Marxist, Communist and Socialist, which makes it much better than the previous and wholly implausible characterization.
The characterization using "anarchist" was not my own. It was taken from several sources.

That still leaves Van Jones as a former member/leader of radical militant group STORM, a 9/11 Truther, a self described "radical black nationalist" and "communist", and in charge of $30 billion in tax payer money.

[Hulkein]

I can't believe Latrinsorm is actually defending this guy.

[Gan]

I don't think Jones previous statements are defensible.

10 minutes with google should convince any but the most partisan of this fact.

I also don't see this as reflecting very much on Obama. This happens in every administration.

I agree for the most part, although I dont think it does the Obama any favors. They have enough to on their plate to clean up without this adding to the distraction. Whatever happened to the 21 page vetting application the Obama camp was requiring all applicants/members to fill out? Or is it all good now that Obama's been elected?


I can't believe Latrinsorm is actually defending this guy.
He's either bored or feeling the urge to play devil's advocate. There really is no defense when you watch the video clips of him speaking the nonsense he's on record for saying. Imagine the reaction if this would have been a white guy in Bush's cabinet who was saying stupid shit like this...

[Latrinsorm]

Race was not even mentioned in the initiative, but it instead dealt with illegal immigrants.This is kind of my point. It is simply not accurate to measure racism by use of racial words. It is entirely possible for initiatives or statements to be racist without overtly racist statements, and vice versa. The same goes for socialism and socialist words, dictators and dictatorial words, etc.
The characterization using "anarchist" was not my own. It was taken from several sources.It would seem these sources are not very reliable if they make literally incoherent statements.
That still leaves Van Jones as a former member/leader of radical militant group STORM, a 9/11 Truther, a self described "radical black nationalist" and "communist", and in charge of $30 billion in tax payer money.Again, former black nationalist, former communist, former member/leader. (And incidentally, I haven't seen anything to suggest STORM is in any way militant. You've made statements in the past about how you've been around for awhile, certainly you of all people remember what actual militant groups were like.) As for being a "9/11 Truther", the most supposedly damning evidence I've found links Mr. Jones to a peaceful demonstration to "raise concerns" about the "international and domestic response" of the United States to 9/11, which puts him in the same category as roughly every liberal in the country. Show me where he says "I believe the government orchestrated and/or actively participated in 9/11", rather than where he says "I think the wars we've started in response to 9/11 are wrong, and also I'm not a fan of the Patriot Act".

[Latrinsorm]

I can't believe Latrinsorm is actually defending this guy.Even the wicked get worse than they deserve.
Imagine the reaction if this would have been a white guy in Bush's cabinet who was saying stupid shit like this..I think it's a matter of public record that my defense of the Bush cabinet/administration was as zealous as my defense of the Obama cabinet/administration has been.

[Hulkein]

Latrin, he signed a petition that included people like Garafolo (not wasting time looking up how to spell that waste of space's name) and other well know people. The organization said they personally spoke with everyone of those well known people to make sure they knew what they were signing.

The petition asserted that they believed the government let the attacks happen so they could go to war.

[Latrinsorm]

Latrin, he signed a petition that included people like Garafolo (not wasting time looking up how to spell that waste of space's name) and other well know people. The organization said they personally spoke with everyone of those well known people to make sure they knew what they were signing.And yet he states "I do not agree with [9/11 truthers] and it certainly does not reflect my views now or ever.", so we are left with a finite number of possibilities:

1) He's lying.
2) The 9/11 truthers are lying.
3) There was some miscommunication and he signed something he thought was something else, perhaps something more like the petition he definitely signed in 2002.

If (1) is the answer, why is there no other evidence of him ever espousing these beliefs? Don't let your appropriate emotional reaction to how stupid the 9/11 truther movement is cloud your judgment.

[Parkbandit]

I can't believe Latrinsorm is actually defending this guy.

You can't?

I expected it. Hell, I'm not sure why most of the socialist hippies on this forum aren't somehow defending the guy.

[Parkbandit]

And yet he states "I do not agree with [9/11 truthers] and it certainly does not reflect my views now or ever.", so we are left with a finite number of possibilities:

1) He's lying.
2) The 9/11 truthers are lying.
3) There was some miscommunication and he signed something he thought was something else, perhaps something more like the petition he definitely signed in 2002.

If (1) is the answer, why is there no other evidence of him ever espousing these beliefs? Don't let your appropriate emotional reaction to how stupid the 9/11 truther movement is cloud your judgment.

I have never, ever signed a document, followed by a phone call confirming my signature, and later denied I knew what I was signing.

[Latrinsorm]

I have never, ever signed a document, followed by a phone call confirming my signature, and later denied I knew what I was signing.Have you ever misspoken in a written context, perhaps saying the exact opposite of what you meant to say?

[Parkbandit]

Have you ever misspoken in a written context, perhaps saying the exact opposite of what you meant to say?

There is a difference.

I have never, ever signed my name to a document that I didn't know what I was signing. THAT is what you and Van want us to believe happened in this case.

I guess I'm simply not as gullible as you obviously are.

[Celephais]

Who's got two thumbs and is standing next to Van Jones?
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_yUTFtFsRawY/R_KOwvoc7TI/AAAAAAAACG0/ildr84rxxvA/s400/VanJones_Colbert.jpg

[Latrinsorm]

I guess I'm simply not as gullible as you obviously are.Which one of us is taking fuzzy reports of an isolated incident as unquestioned gospel?

[Parkbandit]

Which one of us is taking fuzzy reports of an isolated incident as unquestioned gospel?

They are only fuzzy to you... because you don't want to believe them.

My favorite part of this story is this:

The Van Jones (non) feeding frenzy
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
09/04/09 11:30 AM EDT
From a Nexis search a few moments ago:

Total words about the Van Jones controversy in the New York Times: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy in the Washington Post: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy on NBC Nightly News: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy on ABC World News: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy on CBS Evening News: 0.

If you were to receive all your news from any one of these outlets, or even all of them together, and you heard about some sort of controversy involving President Obama's Special Adviser for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, your response would be, "Huh?" If you heard that that adviser, Van Jones, had apologized for a number of remarks and positions in the recent past, your response would be, "What?" And if you were in the Obama White House monitoring the Jones situation, you would be hoping that the news organizations listed above continue to hold the line -- otherwise, Jones, who is quite well thought of in Obama circles, would be history.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/The-Van-Jones-non-feeding-non-frenzy-57271402.html

[Gan]

I think it's a matter of public record that my defense of the Bush cabinet/administration was as zealous as my defense of the Obama cabinet/administration has been.
While I can appreciate the need to think this [thread/topic] is all about you, my statement was more about the state of our current society and politics rather than your participation in this thread. ;)

[Latrinsorm]

They are only fuzzy to you... because you don't want to believe them.I wonder if I can find anyone else in Mr. Jones' situation.

Perhaps #27, Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld (http://public-integrity.org/team.php)

But Dr. Ehrenfeld does not appear on the list! I hear you cry. It's true! On the 9/11 truther website, the "original" petition is listed here:

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633

...but suddenly there are 99 names, rather than 100! What could have happened?

Here is an actual original copy... (http://www.911truth.org/2006/911statementB.pdf)

...and of course, Dr. Ehrenfeld's name is listed.

.

Use your brains.
While I can appreciate the need to think this [thread/topic] is all about you, my statement was more about the state of our current society and politics rathern than your participation in this thread. I mistook the paragraph as having one thrust. Mea culpa. :)

[Gan]

Thats me, multiple thrust Gan.

:whistle:

[Parkbandit]

I wonder if I can find anyone else in Mr. Jones' situation.

Perhaps #27, Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld (http://public-integrity.org/team.php)

But Dr. Ehrenfeld does not appear on the list! I hear you cry. It's true! On the 9/11 truther website, the "original" petition is listed here:

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633

...but suddenly there are 99 names, rather than 100! What could have happened?

Here is an actual original copy... (http://www.911truth.org/2006/911statementB.pdf)

...and of course, Dr. Ehrenfeld's name is listed.

.

Use your brains.

I would offer you the same advice, but we both know it wouldn't work in your case.

"This event makes it clear that the path of social change needs to go through youth culture, and therefore it needs to go through hip-hop. Once hip-hop becomes central to social change, the entire game will be changed."
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=7208

“The white polluters and the white environmentalists are essentially steering poison into the people of color communities because they don’t have a racial justice frame.”
http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/2009/09/02/van-jones-white-polluters-and-white-environmentalists-steering-poison-into-the-people-of-color-communities/


"One of the things that has happened I think too often to progressives is that we don't understand the relationship between minimum goals and maximum goals.

Right after Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat, if the civil rights leaders had jumped out and said, okay, now, we want reparations for slavery, we want redistribution of all wealth and we want to legalize mixed marriages.

If they come out with a maximum program the very next day, they would have been laughed at. Instead they came out with a very minimum program: You know, we just want to integrate these buses. The students a few years later came out with a very minimum program, we just want to sit at the lunch counter. But inside that minimum demand was a very radical kernel that eventually meant that from 1954 to 1968, you know, complete revolution was on the table for this country.

And I think that this green movement has to pursue those same steps and stages. Right now we're saying we want to move from suicidal gray capitalism to some kind of eco-capitalism. Where, you know, at least we're not, you know, fast tracking the destruction of the whole planet.

Well will that be enough? No, it won't be enough. We want to go beyond systems of exploitation and oppression altogether. But that's a process.

What is great about the movement that is beginning to emerge is that the crisis is so severe in terms of joblessness, violence and now ecological threats, that people are willing to be both very pragmatic and very visionary so the green economy will start off as a small subset and we will push it and push it and push it until it becomes an engine for transforming the whole society"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fh4Z0V0zNQg

Yea... it's a huge stretch to believe that a guy who thinks that the white man is pumping toxic waste into minority communities also believes that our government had some role in the 9-11 attacks.

[Parkbandit]

Here's another...

'We've never seen a Columbine done by a black child'...

http://www.breitbart.tv/van-jones-only-suburbal-white-kids-shoot-up-schools/

[Hulkein]

And yet he states "I do not agree with [9/11 truthers] and it certainly does not reflect my views now or ever.", so we are left with a finite number of possibilities:

1) He's lying.
2) The 9/11 truthers are lying.
3) There was some miscommunication and he signed something he thought was something else, perhaps something more like the petition he definitely signed in 2002.

If (1) is the answer, why is there no other evidence of him ever espousing these beliefs? Don't let your appropriate emotional reaction to how stupid the 9/11 truther movement is cloud your judgment.

He's lying seems pretty obvious.

[Valthissa]

Latrin,

assume you and I are going to debate

assume the winner will receive something meaningful

assume the judges are rational, well-informed, and impartial

you get first pick on which side of the proposition you will defend:

Van Jones is well suited to a high ranking appointed position in the U.S. government

please don't tell me you would pick pro....



It seems to me you are defending an insignificant point when the larger one, whether he should be in our govenment, is not debatable.

[Latrinsorm]

I am very disappointed in you, Hulkein. You're a lawyer (did you graduate yet? I don't remember, close enough). On one side you have a witness who we know for a fact added at least one name to his petition under suspicious circumstances, who tried to cover it up, and who is the only testimony from an eight year period as to the alleged ideology. On the other you have a witness who has been totally forthright about everything in his past, including those ideologies which are greatly frowned upon by the mainstream.

I recognize that you didn't have this evidence in the beginning, but you have it now. There's no excuse.
It seems to me you are defending an insignificant point when the larger one, whether he should be in our govenment, is not debatable.Because of my relative youth and other accidents of my character, I've found in general that 9/11 has a much more emotional impact on me. One consequence of this is that I take accusations of being a 9/11 truther very, very, very seriously.

I'm asking you this seriously, why specifically do you feel that he shouldn't be in our government?
Yea... it's a huge stretch to believe that a guy who thinks that the white man is pumping toxic waste into minority communities also believes that our government had some role in the 9-11 attacks.You've actually looked into this now, found no evidence whatsoever directly linking Van Jones to being a 9/11 truther, and somehow you're still comfortable with your original reaction. I am at a loss to explain whatever is motivating you to ignore all the actual factual evidence that has been presented.

[Mabus]

You've actually looked into this now, found no evidence whatsoever directly linking Van Jones to being a 9/11 truther, and somehow you're still comfortable with your original reaction.
Controversial Obama Administration Official Denies Being Part of 9/11 "Truther" Movement, Apologizes for Past Comments (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/09/controversial-obama-administration-official-denies-being-part-of-911-truther-movement-apologizes-for.html)

He did not explain how his name came to be on the petition. An administration source said Jones says he did not carefully review the language in the petition before agreeing to add his name.
(bold my own)

He added his name to the petition (according to the administration), but now stating "he did not carefully review the language in the petition" makes it a-ok.

They should have just stay silent. Cover-ups and re-explanations feed the media beast.

[Parkbandit]

You've actually looked into this now, found no evidence whatsoever directly linking Van Jones to being a 9/11 truther, and somehow you're still comfortable with your original reaction. I am at a loss to explain whatever is motivating you to ignore all the actual factual evidence that has been presented.

Are you fucking high?

The amount of evidence that he signed the petition is far greater than your "evidence" that he didn't.

Christ.. I realize you are just being nothing more than a political homer here, but there has to be a point in time when a sane individual realizes he's defending something rather stupid.

Oh wait.... carry on.

[Parkbandit]

They should have just stay silent. Cover-ups and re-explanations feed the media beast.

Except when the media chooses not to cover it...

[Methais]

http://baseballfactory.com/blog/uploaded_images/Horse_with_blinders_small%5B1%5D-719908.jpg

[Warriorbird]

No shit. As is 'ZOMG LIBRUL MEDIA!'

[Gan]

So there's no such thing as liberal media bias?

[Methais]

So there's no such thing as liberal media bias?

OF COURSE NOT! FOR YOU TO IMPLY THAT THERE IS MAKES YOU A RIGHT WING EXTREMIST DOMESTIC TERRORIST YOU UN-AMERICAN ASSHOLE!!!!!!!!!!!

[Warriorbird]

Of course there's bias. There's also a shit ton of conservative and corporate media bias (arguably more insidious than either of the other two). There's Hearst-ian downward focus news. There's 'dying medium versus vibrant medium' bias too. It exists. Move on.

[Methais]

Unfortunately, there is no more Len Bias.

[Warriorbird]

Sadly. Coke goes for the heart!

There's anti Len bias though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwtTOxouD5Q

[Parkbandit]

Now I get why you used to find this so much fun!

http://www.jessicadunton.com/blog/TinfoilHat.jpg

Except I had a point.. you are just being a dumbfuck as usual.

There's no conspiracy here.. it's a fact.

[Latrinsorm]

He added his name to the petition (according to the administration), but now stating "he did not carefully review the language in the petition" makes it a-ok.What makes him believable is that other people have made the exact same claim about the exact same petition and been exonerated. You are comfortable doubting Mr. Jones' word, are you comfortable doubting Dr. Ehrenfeld's, Rabbi Lerner's, and Mr. Zinn's?
Are you fucking high?

The amount of evidence that he signed the petition is far greater than your "evidence" that he didn't.I didn't say he didn't sign the petition, I said there is no evidence he's a 9/11 truther.

[Warriorbird]

Except I had a point.. you are just being a dumbfuck as usual.

There's no conspiracy here.. it's a fact.

There's a big difference between 'liberal bias exists' and 'there's a conspiracy here!' Communists! ZOMG!

[Parkbandit]

I didn't say he didn't sign the petition, I said there is no evidence he's a 9/11 truther.

:rofl:

Ok, whatever.

Keep drinking the koolaid kid..

[Parkbandit]

There's a big difference between 'liberal bias exists' and 'there's a conspiracy here!' Communists! ZOMG!

Do you even bother to read the posts you make? Serious question.

You posted a picture of yourself in a tin foil hat regarding my post of me saying that the state run media isn't covering a thing about Van Jones. What is the conspiracy?

Had you bothered reading previously, I posted this:



My favorite part of this story is this:

The Van Jones (non) feeding frenzy
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
09/04/09 11:30 AM EDT
From a Nexis search a few moments ago:

Total words about the Van Jones controversy in the New York Times: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy in the Washington Post: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy on NBC Nightly News: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy on ABC World News: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy on CBS Evening News: 0.

If you were to receive all your news from any one of these outlets, or even all of them together, and you heard about some sort of controversy involving President Obama's Special Adviser for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, your response would be, "Huh?" If you heard that that adviser, Van Jones, had apologized for a number of remarks and positions in the recent past, your response would be, "What?" And if you were in the Obama White House monitoring the Jones situation, you would be hoping that the news organizations listed above continue to hold the line -- otherwise, Jones, who is quite well thought of in Obama circles, would be history.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/The-Van-Jones-non-feeding-non-frenzy-57271402.html


The only conspiracy theory here is.. you must be a zombie, because you seem to be functioning without a brain.

[Parkbandit]

Adios!

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama's adviser Van Jones has resigned amid controversy over past inflammatory statements, the White House said early Sunday.
Jones, an administration official specializing in environmentally friendly "green jobs" with the White House Council on Environmental Quality was linked to efforts suggesting a government role in the 2001 terror attacks and to derogatory comments about Republicans.


The resignation comes as Obama is working to regain his footing in the contentious health care debate.

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

The matter surfaced after news reports of a derogatory comment Jones made in the past about Republicans, and separately, of Jones' name appearing on a petition connected to the events surrounding the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. That 2004 petition had asked for congressional hearings and other investigations into whether high-level government officials had allowed the attacks to occur.

"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 has been "inundated with calls from across the political spectrum urging me to stay and fight."

But he said he cannot in good conscience ask his colleagues to spend time and energy defending or explaining his past.

Jones flatly said in an earlier statement that he did not agree with the petition's stand on the 9/11 attacks and that "it certainly does not reflect my views, now or ever."

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

Despite his apologies, Republicans demanded Jones quit.

Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana said in a statement, "His extremist views and coarse rhetoric have no place in this administration or the public debate." Missouri Sen. Christopher Bonds said Congress should investigate Jones's fitness the job.

Fox News Channel host Glenn Beck repeatedly denounced Jones after a group the adviser co-founded, ColorofChange.org, led an advertising boycott against Beck's show to protest his claim that Obama is a racist.

James Rucker, the organization's executive director, has said Jones had nothing to do with ColorofChange.org now and didn't even know about the campaign before it started.

Jones, well-known in the environmental movement, was a civil-rights activist in California before shifting his attention to environmental and energy issues. He is known for laying out a broad vision of a green economy.

Nancy Sutley chair of the council, said in a statement released early Sunday that she accepts Jones resignation and thanked him for his service.

"Over the last six months, he had been a strong voice for creating jobs that improve energy efficiency and utilize renewable resources," she said. "We appreciate his hard work and wish him the best moving forward."

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9AHL8O80&show_article=1

[Hulkein]

Good.

[Gan]

He became a distraction, rightfully he should go. Especially when its questionable that he should have been appointed to that position to begin with.

[Parkbandit]

He became a distraction, rightfully he should go. Especially when its questionable that he should have been appointed to that position to begin with.

Yea.. it's almost like Obama has some judgement issues or something.

Wait, deja vu.

[4a6c1]

lolz @ Van Jones

That guy is a nobody.

Why didnt Obama get Gore as a green czar?? Idontgetit.

[Gan]

Because he wasnt a black communist.

[Methais]

Barack Obama doesn't care about white people.

[radamanthys]

Barack Obama doesn't care about white people.

Barack Obama uses a common racial enemy (white people) to unite his political base and attempt to enact sweeping and radical changes as well as usurp more power for the national government. He apparently wants to hire people who have long-standing experience within that ideal.

Thank god it's not the Jews this time. They've been through enough.

[Tsa`ah]

Barack Obama uses a common racial enemy (white people) to unite his political base and attempt to enact sweeping and radical changes as well as usurp more power for the national government. He apparently wants to hire people who have long-standing experience within that ideal.

Thank god it's not the Jews this time. They've been through enough.

Do you buy your tinfoil hats custom made, or is it hard to find a manufacturer that will allow for the hood over or under the hat in question?

[Celephais]

Unfortunately the google search box doesn't understand sarcasm.

[Gan]

Whatever happened to the 21 page vetting application the Obama camp was requiring all applicants/members to fill out? Or is it all good now that Obama's been elected?

And the answer is... he did not fill one out. Oops?

http://www.breitbart.tv/white-house-van-jones-did-not-fill-out-63-question-seven-page-questionnaire/

[Tsa`ah]

Unfortunately the google search box doesn't understand sarcasm.

Talk about pathetic.

[Geshron]

I give Tsa'ah credit for itemizing and replying to quotes. I could never waste that much energy typing or caring enough to reply.

I will wait to actually be affected in my daily life to even get upset at either side's ramblings.

UPS is doing fine, I know that much.

[radamanthys]

Do you buy your tinfoil hats custom made, or is it hard to find a manufacturer that will allow for the hood over or under the hat in question?

Custom made. Have to look sharp and shiny.


Actually, there was no cited conspiracy. I'd say it's universal that politicians seek power as well as surround themselves with those that share their methods. I was merely describing the method he's currently utilizing (as well as making a comparison to other power-hungry leaders of the past). It's not tinfoil hat stuff, this time.

[Parkbandit]

I know I shouldn't be surprised.. but I still am.

NBC's Today show actually did run a quick little 'oh yea, and Van Jones resigned' right before teasing a 'Check out the arms on Michelle Obama! We're going to have HER TRAINER on in the next hour to let us all know how she got those fantastic arms, as well as talk about how Michelle's fashion sense has transformed the way we look a the First Lady!!!! I think I'm about to pee on myself!!!' every 15 minutes.

[Gan]

LOL

Stop watching TV during the susie homemaker housewife hour! *Or switch over to CNNHN or Bloomberg at least.

[Parkbandit]

LOL

Stop watching TV during the susie homemaker housewife hour! *Or switch over to CNNHN or Bloomberg at least.

My wife is a big Matt Lauer fan.. so it's on when I wake up :(

I'm a big Robin Meade fan.. but I usually get over ruled.

[Mabus]

My wife is a big Matt Lauer fan.. so it's on when I wake up :(

I'm a big Robin Meade fan.. but I usually get over ruled.
I sometimes run "Morning Joe" (MSNBC) in the background while getting ready for the day. It can be anything from mildly interesting to boringly absurd.

[Parkbandit]

I sometimes run "Morning Joe" (MSNBC) in the background while getting ready for the day. It can be anything from mildly interesting to boringly absurd.

Yea.. I don't really watch Robin Meade for the news :)

[Daniel]

Sorry I'm late guys. What's the argument? oh wait, it's already concluded?

Fuck.

[Parkbandit]

Sorry I'm late guys. What's the argument? oh wait, it's already concluded?

Fuck.

It's ok... I can imagine what your stance would be given Van Jones is a black communist.

[Mabus]

Sorry I'm late guys. What's the argument? oh wait, it's already concluded?

Fuck.
He was thrown under the bus, Daniel.

Plenty of room under those wheels it seems.

;)

[Keller]

He was thrown under the bus, Daniel.

Plenty of room under those wheels it seems.

;)

He was sacrificed to the media god that is Glenn Beck.

When I watch him, I think of Mary Ann. Is Glenn Beck a maenad?

[4a6c1]

Oh yeah.

Omophagia at its best.

[Gan]

I dont watch Glenn Beck and thought this guy was deserved to be outed. Does that mean he' a victim of nightly news? CNNHN?

[Parkbandit]

I dont watch Glenn Beck and thought this guy was deserved to be outed. Does that mean he' a victim of nightly news? CNNHN?

Since he wasn't on the nightly news, I doubt you can blame them.

[Mabus]

Van Jones: A Moment of Truth For Liberal Institutions in the Veal Pen - FireDogLake (http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/09/06/van-jones-a-moment-of-truth-for-liberal-institutions-in-the-veal-pen/)

An interesting read about neoliberal angst.