Communist + White House =/= United States

[danfrank]

Statements stand alone by themselves just fine. A whole article doesnt have to be produced to get the point of the original statement across. Shall i give an example ?

I also want to point something that saxi said or quoted. With the senators consent in regards to that quote. the appointed CZARS by our ~demigod~ ( add that to the list too) were not confirmed by the senate therefore there is no consent.. DUH

[jay_a2j]

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

[Symmetry]

Statements stand alone by themselves just fine. A whole article doesnt have to be produced to get the point of the original statement across. Shall i give an example ?

I also want to point something that saxi said or quoted. With the senators consent in regards to that quote. the appointed CZARS by our ~demigod~ ( add that to the list too) were not confirmed by the senate therefore there is no consent.. DUH

Huh, well, he's not a "czar", he's a special advisor. He doesn't have any real power beyond the ability to offer advice and network. He doesn't have senate approval because he doesn't need to have it. Unless, that is, you particularly believe that the senate should pre-approve who the president can and can't talk to.

But yeah, let's hear from the man himself about his job, here. The article is from the NY Times and quotes an interview with E&E:

E&E: Do you consider yourself Obama's "green-jobs czar," as some have dubbed you?

Jones: No, I'm the green-jobs handyman. I'm there to serve. I'm there to help as a leader in the field of green jobs, which is a new field. I'm happy to come and serve and be helpful, but there's no such thing as a green-jobs "czar."

[Bones2484]

E&E: Do you consider yourself Obama's "green-jobs czar," as some have dubbed you?

Jones: No, I'm the green-jobs handyman. I'm there to serve. I'm there to help as a leader in the field of green jobs, which is a new field. I'm happy to come and serve and be helpful, but there's no such thing as a green-jobs "czar."

Oh come on Symmetry. Do you really expect us to believe anything this guy says in the light of such damning FoxNews articles?? I, for one, recommend everyone immediately dismiss anything Jones says and grab your pitchforks.

[Symmetry]

E&E: Do you consider yourself Obama's "green-jobs czar," as some have dubbed you?

Jones: No, I'm the green-jobs handyman. I'm there to serve. I'm there to help as a leader in the field of green jobs, which is a new field. I'm happy to come and serve and be helpful, but there's no such thing as a green-jobs "czar."

Oh come on Symmetry. Do you really expect us to believe anything this guy says in the light of such damning FoxNews articles?? I, for one, recommend everyone immediately dismiss anything Jones says and grab your pitchforks.

I don't have high hopes.

[thegreekdog]

No, no one missed it. We chose to ignore it because it doesn't say that anywhere.

(1) I was speaking in hypotheticals.
(2) If these accusations are not true, I'm cool with him being czar, special advisor, super secret special advisor, whatever.
(3) I found it disconcerting that a poster would determine that having someone who was a communist and/or supported a revolution against the US government was a good thing.

[Bones2484]

No, no one missed it. We chose to ignore it because it doesn't say that anywhere.

(1) I was speaking in hypotheticals.
(2) If these accusations are not true, I'm cool with him being czar, special advisor, super secret special advisor, whatever.
(3) I found it disconcerting that a poster would determine that having someone who was a communist and/or supported a revolution against the US government was a good thing.

While I'd agree, you have to realize that revolution doesn't necessarily entail guns and guerrillas.

[beezer]

If you can disprove them with facts, then I'll find other sources. It's not my fault they're the ones doing the actual journalistic work rather than repeating the administration's talking points. The facts are irrefutable, so the messenger has be demonized and marginalized. That's what happens when one gets on the losing side of an argument.

No kidding! I'm going to have to read some more myself about this guy.

I remember when Serbia posted a story about how some terrorists supported Hillary Clinton during the primaries last year. Backglass tried the old 'it's not a reputable source' ploy because the story came from World Net Daily. When I asked him to show some facts proving that the quotes in the piece were untrue he couldn't provide a single one. That's how they operate here, strike, but it's no surprise.

[saxitoxin]

Everyone is correct.

By statute, the American's Congress has given the President permission to appoint any office it hasn't otherwise designated as requiring confirmation of the Senate - those itemized in the annual revision of the Plum Book. Which means the President can create an office into being through a proclamation, a decree-law, with any level of power or authority and not have it subject to the confirmatory requirements of the Senate.

Whether or not that's in the spirit of the law may be another matter.

[Titanic]

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

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

[stahrgazer]

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

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

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

I'm a Republican, but I like Obama. Obama gets information from all sides before selecting a course of action. If that means he associates with people who used to rabble-rouse, to find the problems that made them feel like they needed to rabble-rouse, so be it. If the English king back in the 1770's had gotten chummy with the Tommies and Bens (Jefferson and Franklin) enough to find and diffuse the source of their discontent, America might still be good ol' tea-drinking British colonists.

I think we can find a very public sign of how he works, especially when I look at his record: he may have known this or that radical, but he himself doesn't conduct his work in radical manners. Obama and Hilary Clinton were extreme adversaries; she used crazy propoganda and namecalling tactics against him. Obama did not use the same tactics, but when he won, he appointed her to a position in his administration.

Obama said himself that his administration would be made up of people from a variety of perspectives, and if you look at it, it's true. A picture of, for example, Bush's cabinet, was a picture of a group of mainly white-haired white men from similar backgrounds; Condoleeza stuck out like a sore thumb! Obama's administration doesn't seem to have any two people who look alike, including many who obviously do not think alike; from that variety of perspectives (a miniature melting pot, as it were) Obama's administration can come up with the best choices that fit the entire melting pot of America.

FDR's new deal was considered "communism" at the time, and one can argue that the package included things that are a form of socialism; but things like Social Security and Medicare are now taboo to even consider touching. Having "public education" is, at its base, a form of socialism, yet educating the children of the world is considered a primary objective for those who want to promote democracy and healthy capitalism worldwide.

Democratic nations band together to send "Doctors without Borders" healthcare to people in all sorts of third world countries who have no healthcare, but o, wow, promote the idea that every American should have some healthcare and be called a communist? If getting me some insurance is communist, then color me red! Oh. Wait. As a Republican, I'm already red.

[bedub1]

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

[Symmetry]

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

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

[thegreekdog]

No, no one missed it. We chose to ignore it because it doesn't say that anywhere.

(1) I was speaking in hypotheticals.
(2) If these accusations are not true, I'm cool with him being czar, special advisor, super secret special advisor, whatever.
(3) I found it disconcerting that a poster would determine that having someone who was a communist and/or supported a revolution against the US government was a good thing.

While I'd agree, you have to realize that revolution doesn't necessarily entail guns and guerrillas.

Not necessarily, but revolution still implies that there's something inherently wrong with a democractically elected government, right? Assuming he's affiliated with the communist party, he's affiliating himself with a party that believes there can only be one party. That's the antithesis of democracy in my opinion (although, I could argue that there's really only one party now).

[Symmetry]

No, no one missed it. We chose to ignore it because it doesn't say that anywhere.

(1) I was speaking in hypotheticals.
(2) If these accusations are not true, I'm cool with him being czar, special advisor, super secret special advisor, whatever.
(3) I found it disconcerting that a poster would determine that having someone who was a communist and/or supported a revolution against the US government was a good thing.

While I'd agree, you have to realize that revolution doesn't necessarily entail guns and guerrillas.

Not necessarily, but revolution still implies that there's something inherently wrong with a democractically elected government, right? Assuming he's affiliated with the communist party, he's affiliating himself with a party that believes there can only be one party. That's the antithesis of democracy in my opinion (although, I could argue that there's really only one party now).

To be pedantic, that's not what revolution implies. To be accurate, your assumption is wrong.

[thegreekdog]

To be pedantic, that's not what revolution implies. To be accurate, your assumption is wrong.

No? What does revolution imply, exactly?

If my assumption is wrong, it's wrong. I'm not trying to be accurate. I'm trying to understand why we would want a communist who wants a revolution in office, whether it's this guy or not.

[jonesthecurl]

E&E: Do you consider yourself Obama's "green-jobs czar," as some have dubbed you?

Jones: No, I'm the green-jobs handyman. I'm there to serve. I'm there to help as a leader in the field of green jobs, which is a new field. I'm happy to come and serve and be helpful, but there's no such thing as a green-jobs "czar."

Oh come on Symmetry. Do you really expect us to believe anything this guy says in the light of such damning FoxNews articles?? I, for one, recommend everyone immediately dismiss anything Jones says and grab your pitchforks.

Hey! watch those pitchforks! He meant some other Jones, not me!

[saxitoxin]

he's pretty much stated that he doesn't believe in either of those things

I state I have a 13-inch penis. That doesn't mean it's true.

It's only 11-inches.

[Symmetry]

To be pedantic, that's not what revolution implies. To be accurate, your assumption is wrong.

No? What does revolution imply, exactly?

If my assumption is wrong, it's wrong. I'm not trying to be accurate. I'm trying to understand why we would want a communist who wants a revolution in office, whether it's this guy or not.

A dictionary would be quicker, but ok.

revolution still implies that there's something inherently wrong with a democractically elected government, right?

Revolution means and implies change. It doesn't mean or imply what you said it implied. The industrial revolution would be a good place to start.

Don't try and weasel out by saying that you're not trying to be accurate. If you think that Van Jones is a communist looking to overthrow democracy, just say it.

[beezer]

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

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

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

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

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

[thegreekdog]

Revolution means and implies change

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

Don't try and weasel out by saying that you're not trying to be accurate. If you think that Van Jones is a communist looking to overthrow democracy, just say it.

I would not have posted in this thread if I had not read spurgistan's reply. His reply seemed to indicate that he had no problem with a communist revolutionary serving in our government. I would have a problem with this, which is why I asked the question. I don't think Van Jones is a communist looking to overthrow democracy simply because it's not in his own best interests to be a communist looking to overthrow democracy. If he said, "Yes, I'm a communist and I want to overthrow democracy," I expect that President Obama would force him to resign.

[Symmetry]

Revolution means and implies change

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

Don't try and weasel out by saying that you're not trying to be accurate. If you think that Van Jones is a communist looking to overthrow democracy, just say it.

I would not have posted in this thread if I had not read spurgistan's reply. His reply seemed to indicate that he had no problem with a communist revolutionary serving in our government. I would have a problem with this, which is why I asked the question. I don't think Van Jones is a communist looking to overthrow democracy simply because it's not in his own best interests to be a communist looking to overthrow democracy. If he said, "Yes, I'm a communist and I want to overthrow democracy," I expect that President Obama would force him to resign.

Get a room! And by that I mean PM spurgistan, or start a new topic. Still, appreciation for the clarification, although not so much for the casual "it's not in his own best interests" stuff you felt the need to put in there. The communist stuff, I leave up to you to figure out.

[thegreekdog]

Get a room! And by that I mean PM spurgistan, or start a new topic. Still, appreciation for the clarification, although not so much for the casual "it's not in his own best interests" stuff you felt the need to put in there. The communist stuff, I leave up to you to figure out.

Don't try and weasel out

[Symmetry]

Get a room! And by that I mean PM spurgistan, or start a new topic. Still, appreciation for the clarification, although not so much for the casual "it's not in his own best interests" stuff you felt the need to put in there. The communist stuff, I leave up to you to figure out.

Don't try and weasel out

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

I admit it all. I was wrong.

[Night Strike]

But yeah, let's hear from the man himself about his job, here. The article is from the NY Times and quotes an interview with E&E:

E&E: Do you consider yourself Obama's "green-jobs czar," as some have dubbed you?

Jones: No, I'm the green-jobs handyman. I'm there to serve. I'm there to help as a leader in the field of green jobs, which is a new field. I'm happy to come and serve and be helpful, but there's no such thing as a green-jobs "czar."

So his comments in February have absolutely no bearing on his beliefs at the time of the interview? I think the better conclusion is that in March, when that interview was, these radical beliefs of his had not become public. Therefore, he had no reason to spout them out since most Americans do not agree with them. Now that a few journalists have actually done their research and found these outlandish statements, he can't hide from them.

Also, he's not running the "Green Jobs department." Finally, as far as I can tell, there is no "Green Jobs department".

If there is not a Green Jobs Department, why does he even have a position?

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

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

As was stated, this isn't a court of law. This is the political arena. It would be unconstitutional to try Van Jones in a court because of his beliefs, because he is free to believe them. However, it is fair game to challenge why his views put him in a political position. Those can be legitimately challenged. There's a huge difference between giving someone a position and throwing them in jail. From a completely different angle, using your analogy, what is more convicting than someone's own actions and statements? No one can refute that he actually did these things.