A “National Day of Service”

I almost hate to admit it, but this is pretty funny…

If nothing else, the animation is superb and impression is almost bang on. As for the unsubtle references to the disgusting revelations of yesterday’s ACORN exposé, I’m still reserving judgment on that sordid affair.

Advertisements

54 Comments

Filed under Humour, Obama

54 responses to “A “National Day of Service”

  1. meh.

    i’m reserving judgement, too, but if this turns out to be as it appears, acorn is finished.

    KEvron

  2. The word “embattled” comes to mind at the moment, which is usually an inevitable precursor to the terms “disgraced” and “former”… So yes, I’d concur with you .

  3. always the chance the were ratfucked; it’s not like their foes are above that, and the timing couldn’t be anymore perfect.

    KEvron

  4. Paul Raposo

    James O’Keefe and Hanna Giles tried this at several ACORN offices and were thrown out of all but two–the two where seasonal employees who were not being assited by full time staff like they are suppose to be–worked.

    James O’Keefe and Lila Rose have been busted in the past for “gotcha journalism” when they called Planned Parenthood offices and made outlandish stories about wanting their donations to go towards aborting black babies. When you hear the heavily edited phone conversations, you see that the phone person is trying to humour a clearly deranged man. Yet those edited tapes are presneted as racisim on PP’s part.

    James O’Keefe walked into UCLA’s Ashe Hall looking for condoms for his supposed boating orgy and was given a pile of condoms. He then presented this as evidence that Ashe Hall supports group sex. Funny, he didn’t notice that they support SAFE group sex. Ironic, no?

    Hanna Giles–the hooker Kenya in the videos–is the daughter of Townhall.com’s Doug Giles. James O’Keefe is a notorious anti-choice, far right advocate.

    The videos are heavily edited and go black in places, yet O’Keefe provided a transcript of what he claims was the entire meeting–with words that don’t appear in the video, yet he claims were spoken. He refuses to release the entire unedited video.

    And lastly, why is it this all took place in mid-July, but the tapes didn’t come out until the day after Obama’s well recieved health care speech?

    And before anyone accuses me of being partisan, I will admite as much. James O’Keefe, Lila Rose And Hanna Giles are all also very anti-gay and have tried to harrass a couple of gay orgs as well, but failed and I suppose decided to move onto other groups they despise. It was rumoured–but never proven–that James O’Keefe was one of a group of people who drilled holes into the stalls of men’s rooms in public toilets on a college campus and then claimed they were put their by gay men trolling for public sex.

    These people are scum, no differnet that the part-timers at ACORN who didn’t have these two arrested during their “sting”. Hopefully though, O’Keefe will be arrested soon, since it’s illegal to record someone without their written permission

  5. Paul Raposo

    Hopefully though, O’Keefe will be arrested soon, since it’s illegal to record someone without their written permission in Maryland.

  6. thanks for the background, paul, but the video alone tells me all i need to know about the makers. desperate, scumbag bigots.

    KEvron

  7. desperate, scumbag bigots.

    They give “journalism” a bad name.

  8. It really looks to me like the worst thing ACORN is guilty of is hiring a complete idiot to work in their office.

    It still looks bloody awful, though.

  9. Agreed. At first I thought this “sting” must be a fake because the scenario was so patently absurd. I don’t know how the people involved couldn’t have avoided thinking they’d been dragged into a poorly written comedy sketch or candid camera gag. The fact that they didn’t express the slightest bit of skepticism at any point is just beyond belief.

  10. hitfan

    “thanks for the background, paul, but the video alone tells me all i need to know about the makers. desperate, scumbag bigots.”

    I applaud the makers of this video, they’re just doing the same thing that muckrakers like Larry Flynt and Sacha Baron Cohen have done against the right. Politics is war and it gets dirty. Remember “Jean Poutine” ?

    Nature despises beautiful losers (like Stockwell Day) who believe in fighting fair. You always fight dirty, even when you don’t have to.

  11. Iciu

    Sort of funny… if you forget completely about the substance… what is funny though is that the demon these guys portray is actually doing exactly what their own would do but in a mcuh smarte way: check this out if you still have illusions as to how progressive Obama really is:

    http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/22580

  12. Well, as it pertains to Obama, I don’t really want to be a prick about this (mostly because I enjoy Jay-Z’s music), but Obama did have a known (former) crack dealer campaign for him.

    Moreover, he actually solicited that help.

    Between these ACORN shenanigans and that, no one can deny that the optics are not good.

  13. Iciu

    PR: way to completely miss the point… what does that have to do with his policies? It looks like you are part of the crowd that felt what happened with Van Jones was great, eh?

    I do stand corrected if you can argue logically how your statement has any validity…

  14. Iciu

    PR: if addressing policy is too large of an endeavour, start by addressing the campaign supporters (at least on the financial side) pretty well defined in that article that I linked to (out of many others available, including oficial public records): you will notice that it’s the same base that supported the Republicans, does this tell you anything about this false outrage with aboslutely no basis, you are getting from Obama and the Democrats exactly what you would be getting from the Republicans, what exactly is the right wing outraged by, is it really that hard to notice what the reality is?

  15. I wouldn’t say what happened to Van Jones was “great” in those particular words.

    But his departure from that office is clearly for the better. Jones was unabashed about the various ulterior motives he had for his environmental policies. Only someone completely out to lunch on that affair would argue otherwise.

    This is the kind of thing that. quite frankly, confirms the suspicions of many conservatives and unfairly tars those who legitimately care about environmental issues — people like Van Jones, George Monbiot and Ken Boshcoff make it clear that a great many of those harping about environmental policy have ulterior motives.

    It’s actually rather unfair to people like David Suzuki who legitimately care.

    And it’s actually rather ironic that you would accuse anyone of missing the point after so blatantly missing it yourself — if ACORN really were as cozy with felons as the video in question makes it seem as they are, Obama’s pandering to the youth vote via Jay-Z (who is a known former crack dealer) at least suggests that they wouldn’t be the only ones.

  16. As of late Friday afternoon, the DOC, Census Bureau severed its relationship with ACORN for the 2010 Census.

  17. I’d heard that. And that will certainly help limit the damage to Obama’s administration, but it won’t eliminate it.

  18. Iciu

    PR: in other words, you find reason to think that video is indeed indicting of ACORN’s reputation… well, it looks like we need to start this conversation a bit earlier in the process if you base your argument on what I (and may others) find to be false… intelctual masturbation in otehr words… satisfying but very short lived 🙂

    And what are Van Jones ulterior motives that you find so abosurd and counter to the benefit of most? You seem to have a very clear view on this so, please share… I am not being sarcastic but genuinely interesetd in seeing what they are…

  19. Iciu

    PR: not to mention that Paul Raposo explained quite nicely how absurd the video and the points it’s trying to make are…

  20. Heh. “Intellectual masturbation” indeed.

    That video is indicting of ACORN’s reputation. Considering the number of attempts it took the producer to get something incriminating out of ACORN, I don’t judge it as sufficient to convict.

    But, then again, some would argue that such a thing happening once is happening too often. Even if one gives ACORN the benefit of the doubt (as I personally do), one still has to admit that the optics of it are terrible.

    Just like Obama soliciting the help of a known former crack dealer to help him win the Presidency — the optics of it are terrible.

    Obama has done himself no favours in this matter, just as ACORN has done itself no favours by evidently hiring a pair of complete morons to work in their offices.

    Apparently, Iciu is making the error of assuming that I think the video in question — as well as Obama’s coziness with a gangsta rapper with a legitimate criminal history — are enough to brand him as corrupt. I don’t.

    These things don’t represent the whole picture, but they are sufficient to darken them significantly.

    And, once again, no I don’t feel the slightest bit bad for them — they largely did this to themselves.

  21. Iciu

    PR: the difference between appearance and reality is huge… there is a significant gap between the way things are and the way they appear; it looks to me that instead of actually noticing this and investigating the way things truly are, you are glorifying the appearance aspect to the point of total confusion… take any object, any idea, any experience and spend 30-60 minutes disecting it and see if what appeared solid and true when you first looked at it is still that way after mindful analysis… if you can, I am very interested in your results as it would completely invalidate the path that I am trying to follow… if you can’t (and yes, I could bet a large amount, really stake my life on it:)), then maybe this would create a bit of pause in your habitual thinking patterns and notice why I stated that a “point was completely missed”…

    It’s exactly this that vague inuendo creates, a pernicious doubt that clouds the real issues to the point of those not even being addressed anymore… let me remind you what you missed from my last messge (I am not claiming it was on purpose):
    “And what are Van Jones ulterior motives that you find so abosurd and counter to the benefit of most? You seem to have a very clear view on this so, please share… I am not being sarcastic but genuinely interesetd in seeing what they are…”

  22. the difference between appearance and reality is huge… there is a significant gap between the way things are and the way they appear;

    Duh. Note how I pretty much just said that.

    it looks to me that instead of actually noticing this and investigating the way things truly are, you are glorifying the appearance aspect to the point of total confusion…

    It looks to me like you’re looking for something to whine about.

    I have at no point pretended that the episode depicted in this video is in any way representative of ACORN’s pratices — and I’ve noted that for you numerous times now.

    But I will point out to you that this happening in any ACORN office is a huge problem for that organization. Quite frankly, the extent to which the employees in question were willing to help these individuals not just break the law but practically flaunt it is extremely damaging to that organization, and very much does discredit it immensely.

    It raises question like: precisely who is ACORN hiring in the first place? How are they making their hiring decisions? What are they overlooking in the course of their hiring? What else would we find if there was a comprehensive investigation?

    Basically, the kind of shit that would keep you up at night.

    There. I’d say now I’ve given you something to cry about.

  23. Iciu

    PR: let’s try one more time 🙂
    ““And what are Van Jones ulterior motives that you find so absurd and counter to the benefit of most? You seem to have a very clear view on this so, please share… I am not being sarcastic but genuinely interested in seeing what they are…”

    As to the issue you raise about ACORN, you can raise them about practically any organization or private or public enterprise without one problem (and that one heavily doctored for addressing perception more than substance) instance pointing to a major systemic error… trying to put in place measures that void any possible error in anything we do would practically bring everything to a standstill… so, not I do not think it is HUGE problem (even if it were entirely true, which does not seem to be the case, that is why I pointed you to that analysis done by somebody else here) and not indicative of much really…

    “It’s exactly this that vague inuendo creates, a pernicious doubt that clouds the real issues to the point of those not even being addressed anymore…”

    I will not ask about you “getting it” anymore, we’ll just leave that part alone… if you do have the time to answer the first question, we could probably continue a meaningful conversation… othrrwise, we’ll just move on… the part that you labeled as “duh” seems to be far away from a “duh” for most of us and I am not seeing enough clarity in your posts to suggest you transcended it 🙂 very possible that the clarity I am referring to is missing from my posts too 🙂

  24. Iciu

    PR: last thoguht for tonight – I do not really know antyhing about you and what your education and experience is about so here goes, in case this is a new take for you: in systems theory (Deming is a good start), there are common cause and special cause variations; the event described re ACORN (assuming it is indeed true without reservations although many valid ones have already been raised!) clearly classifies as a special cause variation in that system: typically, you are way better off if you do not start tweaking the system because of it as that usually results in deteriorating the behaviour of the system; if it were a common cause variation and did produce a truly bad effect (this again does not seem to be the case here as this was a perception game if anything) then there is some cause for concern as that may point to a systemic error.

    This is why, in a nutshell, I mentioned that this incident is not worth of much attention or cause for concern, it may provide some comedic relief for those that view ACORN as evil but not more than that so… I honestly fail to see any reason for concern, not to mention I am not about to lose any sleep over it.

    I also fail to see the “whining” and “crying” part of my post but I trust you will be gracious enough to explain the logical train of thoughts that in your mind created that impression… so I can learn somethign from this exchange… really, really 🙂

  25. Van Jones has made it pretty clear that he wanted to treat his Green jobs portfolio as a means of incremental change toward, frankly, communism.

    As it regards ACORN, if you want to argue that systemic dysfunctions that lead to breaking the law in order to help pimps ply their trade is nothing out of the ordinary, you’re welcome to make that argument.

    You’ll have to own that lunacy, but you’re welcome to make the argument.

    These are not matters of vague innuendo. These are matters in which a President has created around himself a circle in which he not only colludes with organizations that — on any number of occasions — violate the law in order to help felons continue to break the law, but actually solicits the help of felons to campaign on his behalf.

    These are matters of the image the President is both creating for himself, and the image that is being created on his behalf by organizations that he has associated with.

    I’m not sure what you think whining about the fact that someone would dare talk about this is going to accomplish.

    It doesn’t change the fact that, not only have very valid questions about some of the things going on in ACORN been raised, and it doesn’t change the fact that Barack Obama has invited questions about the extent to which he himself associates with criminals.

    I firmly believe that, when the question is asked, the answer to the ACORN question will be “these things don’t happen very often” (although it has happened). I firmly believe that, when the question will be “Obama had a passing acquaintance with Jay-Z, but that’s about it”.

    It doesn’t mean that you don’t ask the questions, it doesn’t mean that you don’t talk about the appearance of deeper guilt — that’s what begs the question in the first place.

  26. Ti-Guy

    Van Jones has made it pretty clear that he wanted to treat his Green jobs portfolio as a means of incremental change toward, frankly, communism.

    Could someone kill Patrick Ross already?

  27. Iciu

    PR: I indeed do not know you and can’t even begin to understand how your mind works… the last post is, my mind, hard to refute on a logical and factual basis so I will be very short with a few (on occasion cryptic) pointers and I’ll leave it at that, just for comedic relief, as this is all we’re getting from this conversation 🙂

    “Van Jones has made it pretty clear that he wanted to treat his Green jobs portfolio as a means of incremental change toward, frankly, communism.”

    Care to provide some factual evidence (with a clear context) or was this just an educated guess/inference (see again that gap between appearance and reality)?

    “As it regards ACORN, if you want to argue that systemic dysfunctions that lead to breaking the law in order to help pimps ply their trade is nothing out of the ordinary, you’re welcome to make that argument.”

    OK, systems theory is not your forte… special cause variation does not point to a systemic problem, it’s an event that may happen once in a blue moon, under very special conditions (this is why setting somebody up is normally illegal, since you are so fond of lawful action :))

    “You’ll have to own that lunacy, but you’re welcome to make the argument”

    Funny how ignorance on a specific matter (in this case, systems theory) leads to statements not related to anything 🙂

    “These are not matters of vague innuendo. These are matters in which a President has created around himself a circle in which he not only colludes with organizations that — on any number of occasions — violate the law in order to help felons continue to break the law, but actually solicits the help of felons to campaign on his behalf.”

    This is beyond silly; if the guy is a convicted fellon, the idea is that after you serve your sentence, you are considered a decent human being totally able to participate in society, correct? For instance, should we shun everybody that interacts with Gordon Campbell (premier of BC, Canada – not sure wher you’re located) because he had some form of conviction in Hawai (or is it just a matter of criminal record?)? So, if you spent some time in jail, your life is over, you are a pariah, no matter what you do afterwards? Hmmm, are you for real?

    “These are matters of the image the President is both creating for himself, and the image that is being created on his behalf by organizations that he has associated with.”

    Image, appearance, reality… the “duh” moment came and went in a flash, eh? Looks like the notion of contemplation or careful reasoning is a “duh” one too, eh?

    “I’m not sure what you think whining about the fact that someone would dare talk about this is going to accomplish”

    My whinning 🙂 was about what you hope it is going to accomplish? 🙂

    “It doesn’t change the fact that, not only have very valid questions about some of the things going on in ACORN been raised, and it doesn’t change the fact that Barack Obama has invited questions about the extent to which he himself associates with criminals.”

    Suddenly, one allegation (based on a fabricated event) became “some of the things…” “criminals” – so serving your sentence still makes you a criminal eh? Once convicted once, this is it, your life is over, you are garbage, you do not count and… how about Charles Colson (somehow I have the feeling you are familiar with who he is), he has a criminal record oo… see how this silly this line of reasoning is? Personally, I am not at all fond of Obama (you would have noticed if you took the time to read the article I pointed to in an earlier post on this thread) but this has nothing to do with why and I would never use such nonsense to enhance my critique of the man… no relation to why I think he is not the real thing that the US people (somewhat desperately) could use…

    “I firmly believe that, when the question is asked, the answer to the ACORN question will be “these things don’t happen very often” (although it has happened). I firmly believe that, when the question will be “Obama had a passing acquaintance with Jay-Z, but that’s about it”.

    Which is the reasonable thing to happen… unfortunately, the intention behind these two points of discussion and questions is not a clean one that springs from genuine concern… as you can see from how you rationalize their legitimacy.

    “It doesn’t mean that you don’t ask the questions, it doesn’t mean that you don’t talk about the appearance of deeper guilt — that’s what begs the question in the first place.”

    So, in other words, you saw what reality is from the beginning but somehow you hoped for some more sinister and deeper truths to surface? Because talking about real issues in an open manner is not as exciting like this drivel, eh?

  28. No, your last post is not hard to refute on a logical or factual basis. Notice how easily it was done?

  29. Iciu

    Notice how easily what was done?
    PR, good luck with your appeareances, they seem to be numerous and pretty darn confusing… I trust you felt the comedic relief was not worth of deepening anything, eh?

    It is true that I have not paid attention to your name until recently on this blog and did give you the benefit of the doubt… I am beginning to see why (almost) nobody here bothers engaging you in any meaningful manner… I don’t think you are as silly as you appear in your comments, I am just having a hard time pinning down your motivation… but then again, with such muddy reasoning, it may not be clear to you either 🙂

    Enjoy your life!

  30. If you say so.

    But here’s the thing: when Van Jones openly talks about being a communist, openly talks about how replacing “grey capitalism” with environmentally-friendly “eco-capitalism” won’t be enough, and indulges himself in the kind of rhetoric that communists have sustained themselves on for centuries, I wonder what it is people such as yourself expect people to think of him.

    Van Jones is pretty clearly a communist. As hyperbolic as that sounds, it’s pretty much what seems to be the case.

    Now here’s the funny thing about your apparent outrage over Jones’ resignation. Perhaps you share Donna Edwards’ chagrin that Obama did not defend Jones.

    Barack Obama is not a communist. You know this and I know this. Yet Van Jones clearly intended to use his green jobs portfolio to incrementally push the United States toward communism.

    And because Barack Obama is not a communist, he’s apparently obligated to maintain communists within his administration? How much sense does that honestly make?

  31. Iciu

    If I say so what? “Fine , be that way” would be a nice continuation, eh? 🙂

    “But here’s the thing: when Van Jones openly talks about being a communist, openly talks about how replacing “grey capitalism” with environmentally-friendly “eco-capitalism” won’t be enough, and indulges himself in the kind of rhetoric that communists have sustained themselves on for centuries, I wonder what it is people such as yourself expect people to think of him.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Jones

    You’ll have to be more specific, so far you offered your own inference and interpretation and used “communist” as an adjective that is supposed to point to some automatically horrible things (I grew up in some form of Communism, it’s not better than what we have here in Canada, it had some features that are worth discussing though) without me seeing antyhing in Van Jones work that points to him wanting to start a revolution that wants to make the USA a communist country…

    so if this assertion is false, the rest of your commnetary is not worth following thouthg as it’s just a sophism (“… what seems to be the case…” is nice, it does show you do have that basic decency common to us all)…

    Yes, indeed, how much sense does this honestly make?

  32. Iciu

    PR: in the end, trying to understand what even prompted these exchanges, I noticed it was your commentary as to how those events (ACORN related video, Van Jones’ resignation and the one you added 🙂 as the association with Jay-Z) are showing that “the optics are not good” by this, just supporting denigrating something/somebody based on reasons that have very (if any) little substance and that definitely move us away from the real issues. I have also noticed that you first thoughst were indeed best thougts as you did start by noticing how silly the whole thing is but then… you seem to have got caught into a different frame of mind (was it just too easy to latch on a bit of an anger rant or was it something else?)… I trust that if you can explain what motivates you on these matters or in general (not to us, to yourself is good enough), things are going to become a bit leass heavy and rigid and this whole exchange will be seen for what it really is (in my mind anyway): a rather trivial dispute with not a whole lot of substance to it and that will not really affect anything or anybody… a total waste a time or maybe a chance to get to know each other a bit better… with the idea that when we’ll have time to cross paths again, the tone will be a bit more civil (I think we kept it reasonable this time around too) and we may actually be able to talk more about substance and less about all this fluff generated by this discrepancy between appearance and reality…

    All the best to you, PR, really and sincerely…

  33. ICIU — Arguing with Patrick can frequently be a fool’s errand. I should have warned you about that sooner… 😉

  34. Which would be because I so frequently argue with fools.

    As is clearly the case right now.

  35. CWTF

    @ Patrick Ross: Shut your hole, wingnut.

  36. Iciu

    PR: thank you, do you need the other cheek too? 🙂
    It is “clearly the case right now” to you my dear, it’s all relative as much as you seem to be comfortable with absolute views (somehow, I have the feeling that you are comfortable in a traditional Evangelical view of life) and fixing reality to match some pre-conceived notions…

    Thank you RT, I was beginning to realize that when I had to read some of his statements a few times and then squint really hard to try and come up with something that made them rational… it hurts a little bit but I think it comes naturally to others so… as long he is happy with this attitude, everything is OK, I trust he does not have any real power to affect anybody with actions matching his views… not to mention, that I am sincere when I say that I did notice that inside all the drivel, there are gems of decency and clear understanding… for some reason (maybe the image that he thinks he has to protect and nurture) though he abandons them quickly and takes a weird stance in which the deeper the argument goes, the further away removed from reality he seems to get…

    I’ll know better next time (maybe 🙂 )

  37. Hmmm. Interesting.

    I’m not sure entirely what your apparent assumption that I’m an evangelical anything is based on, but the extent to which you’re wrong about that is actually kind of hilarious.

    As for what is and isn’t rational:

    It isn’t rational to simply ignore the point that a Presidential candidate could recruit a known former crack dealer to help him campaign. It isn’t rational to simply ignore an episode in which an organization (or even just individual employees while working for that organization) are caught breaking the law in order to facilitate illegal activities. It isn’t rational to pretend that a self-avowed communist who publicly states his intent to use his office to advance an ulterior agenda that involves incrementally supplanting capitalism hasn’t made his intentions pretty clear.

    Maybe rational in the mind of a leftist ideologue. Not rational to anyone else.

  38. Iciu

    PR: right wing (ideologue vs my left wing ideology?) and no fear of God? or you think the rational views described above are centrist and in tune with reality?

  39. “I have the feeling that you are comfortable in a traditional Evangelical view of life”

    twats is more of the ann coulter brand of thumper.

    KEvron

  40. Iciu

    Kevron: what, Godless?
    he seemed to not like Ann and her call for a revival of the Mc Carthy age… but then again, he is for writing off any person that has a criminal record as totally unfit to ever fully participate in society, at least not in politics… and to malign everybody that tried/flirted with anything out of the ordinary during their teenage/college years… and to question any organization/company that has ever hired dubious people… after he’s completely done, he may find himself all alone in the whole world (if he is indeed as pristine as he makes it sound – funny thing is that such pristine people are the most tolerant ones 🙂 )

    Should I understand that I should interpret “…but the extent to which you’re wrong about that is actually kind of hilarious.” as him being an atheist, a buddhist, a muslim or a hindu (he surely can’t be Christian is I was that far off) or maybe something else a bit more mystical?

  41. with coulter, as with twats, it’s a matter of identitification.

    KEvron

  42. he is for writing off any person that has a criminal record as totally unfit to ever fully participate in society, at least not in politics

    Once again, you make some pretty big (and silly) assumptions.

    I haven’t suggested that anyone with a criminal record is unfit to fully participate in society. Therein, partially, is the rub.

    There’s a difference between a criminal who goes to jail, does their time and reforms and an individual who doesn’t do any time for their crimes and goes on to enrich himself by making (albeit often fabulous) music about it.

    Just like there’s a difference between hiring dubious people, who are dubious in their private affairs, and having the dubious activities of said dubious people carried out as activities of your organization.

    You don’t seem to get that. Like I said before, I so often have to argue with fools.

  43. PR — Can you specifically identify a “Communistic” initiative that Van Jones championed with respect to his vision of “eco-capitalism” and the creation of so-called “green jobs”?

  44. Van Jones makes it pretty clear in this video that his environmental activism is a means of incrementally advancing a communist agenda.

    Incremental.

    I know you know what that means.

    If this were all just a matter of mere innuendo that would be one thing — I would have no time for it.

    But when the man’s own comments state fairly clearly that he has this kind of an agenda, that’s another thing entirely.

    Normally, this kind of thing is purely either hyperbole or hysteria — such is the case with the communist accusations tossed at Obama — but in the case of Van Jones they very clearly fit.

    And I’m actually as surprised at that as anyone.

  45. “I know you know what that means.”

    KEvron

  46. Iciu

    PR… we all are fools to a certain extent but the filters/blinders you have on when looking at reality are … well, exactly the way they are suppsoed to work: bend antyhing to fit pre-conceived ideas…
    what exactly di Van Jones say in that video that you disagree with? the only way those goals can be achieved is through communism? those goals are really promising a destruction of “our way of life”?
    and a Glen Back montage is all you found to sustain your views factualy? come on, you can’t be a Glen Back admirer, are you?

  47. PR — I think that’s a bit of overreach to claim the “maximum” agenda is one of Communism (at least as that term is generally understood). I’m not sure, but I suspect that label doesn’t really describe the “transformation” Jones has as the ultimate goal of incremental green initiatives. Rather than demonizing him with irrelevant Cold-War era rhetoric, it would have been more interesting to better understand what he sees as replacing the current economic model that most reasonable people would have to agree is inherently unsustainable.

  48. Normally, I would be willing to agree with that.

    But then I’d have to remind you that he himself stated that replacing the unsustainable “grey” capitalist model with a sustainable “eco-capitalist” model wasn’t going to be enough.

    According to his comments, that wasn’t his maximum goal.

    The guy has described himself as a capitalist, and even today is indulging himself in Marxist rhetoric.

    If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck we call it…

    …Anything but a duck if one were to ask Iciu. But then someone would have to ask once again:

    Is that really rational?

  49. forum: “Can you specifically identify a ‘Communistic’ initiative”….”what exactly di Van Jones say in that video that you disagree with”

    twats: “If it looks like a duck”

    keep moving those goal posts, twats. miserable troll.

    KEvron

  50. Iciu

    PR: “If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck we call it…”

    Try and contemplate again that notion of difference between the way things appear and the way they truly are (at some point in this conversation you made it sound like it was a “duh” moment for you so… I am ahving hard time understanding how you can make the statement above in full honesty and mindfulness)

    Reality seems to be that if it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, conventonal (lack of) wisdom would indee call it a duck… my take of the raison d’etre for blogs is that we are trying to clear some of the confusion generated by these screwed and superficial optics not to actually enhacnce them… the spirit of my statement s was just that despite the occasional rant and ego trips, I trust you will notice it if you allow yourslef another take after you drop the original view (incoprrect in my opinion).

    Furthermore, should I understand that your beef with Jay-Z is about him not being convicted for those alleged (they stay alleged until proven otherwise despite what everybody says 🙂 – you seem to be approaching this in a very legalistic manner) infractions… so if he had a legitimate criminal record, Obama’s association with him would be legitimate?

    How about that metaphysical view of yours? If it’s anotehr brand of Christianity, is being Evangelical so far off the mark, only one true path sanctioned by Jesus and God? Somehow, I do not picture you as an atheist or anything else, usually you have to search very hard to find these kind of views in a Godless individual, not sure why though…

    Maybe after all this appearance game we can get to the actual issues that Van Jones supports and you find extremely dangerous for most of us and society as a whole… that way you may reach a sustainable point of view that is acnhored in some substance and not just perceptions and inuendos…

  51. PR — Normally, I would be willing to agree with that.

    I’m rather busy today, so I’ll take that at face value and simply move on rather than engaging in some abducto ad absurdum argument, as you’re sometimes prone to engage in.

  52. Please.

    Like suggesting that someone who has identified himself as a communist, indulges himself in communist rhetoric, and has stated that the goal of his policies is to supplant capitalism isn’t a communist?

    Absurdum indeed-um.

  53. Thanks for unwittingly confirming my point.

    If/when Van Jones more clearly articulates the “maximum” politico-economic objectives of his incremental green initiatives, I’d be happy to discuss the matter further. Until that time however, I don’t see a productive conversation in the cards taking place here on this topic.

  54. shorter red tory: “fuck off already, troll.”

    KEvron

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s