Gene Frenkle Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 First of all, I don't give a schitt what you think of where the link was from. The Van Jones info in the link is absolutely, undeniably true. But nice try with yet the typical liberal "I can't dispute the message so I'll attack the messenger" argument. Second, I have commented previously that birthers are !@#$ing idiots. Again, nice try...but useless to the point at hand. Finally, here is why I have an axe to grind: This is a hand-picked Obama czar...a self-admmitted communist who even YOU admit is a !@#$ing retard...and he is currently overseeing $60 BILLION of OUR money from the stimulus bill (I hope the fact that I linked to Air America provides you with more credibility.) YOU may like having a !@#$ing retard communist in charge of that much money with absolutely NO accountability to anyone but his boss, but I don't. It's as irresponsible as taking a guy who cheated on his taxes and naming him your freaking treasury secretary. SIXTY BILLION. This is beyond laughable. With any luck Jones will be canned before class starts on Tuesaday so we can get back to the really important stuff, like hearing Obama once again explain a health care plan that no one has been able to explain. I'm still trying to work out exactly where I defended this guy in any way. So, if we can agree that I agree that this guy is a bad pick, what's your point? Is this an impeachable offense? Should we bust out the torches and pitchforks and head for the White House? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 So, if we can agree that I agree that this guy is a bad pick, what's your point? Is this an impeachable offense? Should we bust out the torches and pitchforks and head for the White House? Of course not! What is this, a Republican presidency? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 Of course not! What is this, a Republican presidency? Nope. If it were, LABillzFan would be unpatriotic instead of just partisan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted September 4, 2009 Author Share Posted September 4, 2009 I'm still trying to work out exactly where I defended this guy in any way. So, if we can agree that I agree that this guy is a bad pick, what's your point? Is this an impeachable offense? Should we bust out the torches and pitchforks and head for the White House? For starters, Obama needs to fire Jones right now and get his hands off any of the money that Obama slid to him in the stimulus bill. Second, we should start taking a much closer look at the 30+ other czars who are not accountable to anyone other than Obama, and follow the stimulus money, and any other money trail, and see if these people are maybe self-admitted communists as well with billions of taxpayer dollars at their disposal. Finally, we should ask this most transparent administration about it's vetting process, which clearly seems to miss even the most obvious information about people who are special advisors to the most powerful man in the free world. I'd start there. Nope. If it were, LABillzFan would be unpatriotic instead of just partisan. As opposed to being an "unpatriotic" "angry mob" "asssshole" "neanderthal" "brownshirt" "Nazi" that this administration calls anyone who protests them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 For starters, Obama needs to fire Jones right now and get his hands off any of the money that Obama slid to him in the stimulus bill. Second, we should start taking a much closer look at the 30+ other czars who are not accountable to anyone other than Obama, and follow the stimulus money, and any other money trail, and see if these people are maybe self-admitted communists as well with billions of taxpayer dollars at their disposal. Finally, we should ask this most transparent administration about it's vetting process, which clearly seems to miss even the most obvious information about people who are special advisors to the most powerful man in the free world. I'd start there. As opposed to being an "unpatriotic" "angry mob" "asssshole" "neanderthal" "brownshirt" "Nazi" that this administration calls anyone who protests them? You and I both know that Barrack Obama clearly knew ALL about Van Jones' very lunatic and very radical views. This is exactly the "change" that Obama was talking about in the campaign. It's out in the open that this guy believes that Bush was behind 911 and he STILL has a job in the White House???? Wow, any Obama supporters want to justify this please feel free to jump in at any time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 For starters, Obama needs to fire Jones right now and get his hands off any of the money that Obama slid to him in the stimulus bill. Fair enough, I don't think the guy should be in there because he is obviously prone to believing garbage theories. In reality, I don't think he broke any laws, so I'm sure this could go either way. I would personally like to see him gone. Second, we should start taking a much closer look at the 30+ other czars who are not accountable to anyone other than Obama, and follow the stimulus money, and any other money trail, and see if these people are maybe self-admitted communists as well with billions of taxpayer dollars at their disposal. I'm sure you're serious, but that's a bit over the top. Playing devil's advocate for a moment, which law is it that states a person cannot belong to the communist party in the United States and hold public office? Which laws prohibit a person from believing what they want? Finally, we should ask this most transparent administration about it's vetting process, which clearly seems to miss even the most obvious information about people who are special advisors to the most powerful man in the free world. Honestly, coming from someone I assume was a Bush II supporter, this argument sounds rather hollow. You're really out for blood on this one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 As opposed to being an "unpatriotic" "angry mob" "asssshole" "neanderthal" "brownshirt" "Nazi" that this administration calls anyone who protests them? You forgot "astroturfer" oh and "dining room table" you know leftist sheeple terms, straight out of the liberal locotoad handbook Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 You forgot "astroturfer" oh and "dining room table" you know leftist sheeple terms, straight out of the liberal locotoad handbook Sticks and stones...what a bunch of children we act like sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 Sticks and stones...what a bunch of children we act like sometimes. I know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 Playing devil's advocate for a moment, which law is it that states a person cannot belong to the communist party in the United States and hold public office? Which laws prohibit a person from believing what they want? I don't think it's so much of him being communist as it is where the !@#$ has all the stimulus money gone? You think greed only rears its ugly head in corporate America? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 I don't think it's so much of him being communist as it is where the !@#$ has all the stimulus money gone? You think greed only rears its ugly head in corporate America? Human nature seems to rear itself everywhere there are humans. Is there stimulus money missing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 Human nature seems to rear itself everywhere there are humans. Is there stimulus money missing? Is all the stimulus money accounted for? Regarding your human nature remark this really goes more towards Kelly the Dog. His mantra is that corp America needs to strictly controlled but the government should have free reign. Funny seeing their both run by the same type of people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 Is all the stimulus money accounted for? Regarding your human nature remark this really goes more towards Kelly the Dog. His mantra is that corp America needs to strictly controlled but the government should have free reign. Funny seeing their both run by the same type of people. Accounted for by who? I haven't heard anything about shady dealings with stimulus money. It wouldn't surprise me, but are you talking about a specific story? As far as the rest, any largish group of people is pretty much the same type of people. People put into similar situations will react similarly. Smaller government doesn't change that. I certainly wouldn't agree with Kelly's statement, but I've never seen him say that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted September 4, 2009 Author Share Posted September 4, 2009 I'm sure you're serious, but that's a bit over the top. Playing devil's advocate for a moment, which law is it that states a person cannot belong to the communist party in the United States and hold public office? Which laws prohibit a person from believing what they want? Honestly, coming from someone I assume was a Bush II supporter, this argument sounds rather hollow. You're really out for blood on this one! First, I wouldn't say this is over the top. If you want to keep this to the letter of the law, that's fine. My position isn't about the letter of the law. I am simply not a big fan of giving $60B of taxpayer dollars to, in your words, "a fkccing retard." If this administration was so quick to give this "fkccing retard" that much money, wouldn't you wonder what other "fkccing retards" have their hands on billions in taxpayer dollars? And for what it's worth, yes, I was a Bush supporter, but I'm not so blind as to think he didn't completely screw the pooch in his second term by straying from truly conservative principles. In fact, I actually was down on McCain as the campaign went on because the more he pandered for votes, the more it became clear he's about as conservative as Arlan Specter. If you want to paint me as a stereotypical anything, do it correctly. Politically I lean toward the very conservative side of things. I want less government in my life, not more. Less government means more freedom to the individual. More freedom to the individual means greater personal accountability. We individually survive or fail on our own, not at the whim of a government entity that somehow thinks it knows better than me. And when individuals account for themselves, great things happen collectively. Yes, I realize that some people need our help, and I already actively do my part to help the helpless, but this country was built on people helping each other by CHOICE, not be COMMAND. Case in point: social security. As I said before, I'll call it even with the government. They can keep the tens of thousands of dollars I've been forced to contribute over the past 30 years AND they can take me off the list of recipients if I can just keep my 12.4% each paycheck from this day forward. Let me take care of my own future. Don't tell me what I must give you, especially when a portion of the amount I am giving you is being handed over to a "fkccing retard." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 First, I wouldn't say this is over the top. If you want to keep this to the letter of the law, that's fine. My position isn't about the letter of the law. I am simply not a big fan of giving $60B of taxpayer dollars to, in your words, "a fkccing retard." If this administration was so quick to give this "fkccing retard" that much money, wouldn't you wonder what other "fkccing retards" have their hands on billions in taxpayer dollars? And for what it's worth, yes, I was a Bush supporter, but I'm not so blind as to think he didn't completely screw the pooch in his second term by straying from truly conservative principles. In fact, I actually was down on McCain as the campaign went on because the more he pandered for votes, the more it became clear he's about as conservative as Arlan Specter. If you want to paint me as a stereotypical anything, do it correctly. Politically I lean toward the very conservative side of things. I want less government in my life, not more. Less government means more freedom to the individual. More freedom to the individual means greater personal accountability. We individually survive or fail on our own, not at the whim of a government entity that somehow thinks it knows better than me. And when individuals account for themselves, great things happen collectively. Yes, I realize that some people need our help, and I already actively do my part to help the helpless, but this country was built on people helping each other by CHOICE, not be COMMAND. Case in point: social security. As I said before, I'll call it even with the government. They can keep the tens of thousands of dollars I've been forced to contribute over the past 30 years AND they can take me off the list of recipients if I can just keep my 12.4% each paycheck from this day forward. Let me take care of my own future. Don't tell me what I must give you, especially when a portion of the amount I am giving you is being handed over to a "fkccing retard." It's over the top because there are no signs that he behaved inappropriately, just that he believed inappropriately, whatever the hell that means. It's somewhat funny that you want more control in your life and at the same time want to crucify this guy for...believing? Now it's entirely possible that he spent inappropriately, embezzled or whatever, but until actual evidence surfaces he hasn't really done anything wrong - no matter what you or I might think about his beliefs. As far as the rest of it, I don't disagree with very much. I'll split from your thinking of course and say that we should help people through government because it is a fairer way to share the burden of the political and social system we thrive in, proportionate to the extent that we thrive. I guess you have more faith in the altruistic nature of people than I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 It's over the top because there are no signs that he behaved inappropriately, just that he believed inappropriately, whatever the hell that means. It's somewhat funny that you want more control in your life and at the same time want to crucify this guy for...believing? Now it's entirely possible that he spent inappropriately, embezzled or whatever, but until actual evidence surfaces he hasn't really done anything wrong - no matter what you or I might think about his beliefs. http://spectator.org/blog/2009/08/29/van-j...is-stormtrooper "Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM), the revolutionary group formed by self-described "communist" and "rowdy black nationalist" Van Jones, held a vigil in Oakland, California, "mourning the victims of U.S. imperialism around the world" on the night after Sept. 11, 2001." Did you read that? He wasn't mourning the victims of 911, he was mourning the sick and twisted terrorists who did it. If you don't think what Van Jones said was wrong and that upon discovery of this that he should be immediately terminated then you're just as f'd up as he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 http://spectator.org/blog/2009/08/29/van-j...is-stormtrooper "Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM), the revolutionary group formed by self-described "communist" and "rowdy black nationalist" Van Jones, held a vigil in Oakland, California, "mourning the victims of U.S. imperialism around the world" on the night after Sept. 11, 2001." Did you read that? He wasn't mourning the victims of 911, he was mourning the sick and twisted terrorists who did it. If you don't think what Van Jones said was wrong and that upon discovery of this that he should be immediately terminated then you're just as f'd up as he is. Again, for the reading-impaired: I would like to see him canned, but he broke no law. Is he guilty of Thought Crime? Do you people all get your new and opinion from freaking blogs??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Poojer Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 I am gonna side with you on this one....don't like his stance or what he has supported, but he is free to stand for any cause he so chooses, as are you, me and everyone else.... Again, for the reading-impaired: I would like to see him canned, but he broke no law. Is he guilty of Thought Crime? Do you people all get your new and opinion from freaking blogs??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 I am gonna side with you on this one....don't like his stance or what he has supported, but he is free to stand for any cause he so chooses, as are you, me and everyone else.... We do live in America after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 I am gonna side with you on this one....don't like his stance or what he has supported, but he is free to stand for any cause he so chooses, as are you, me and everyone else.... You're missing the point. After all the ugly stuff thats come to light, Van Jones is still employed by the white house. The dude who sided with the terrorists, unbelievably, still has a job there. It's incomprehensible to me that he won't be fired. Not thrown in jail, but fired. But then again, Obama listened to Reverend "mr. america's chickens" Wright for twenty years so we'll have to wait and see what happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts