• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Van Jones - Obama's Green Jobs Czar

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: CPA

You have got to be kidding me.

So, if Chavez just upped and changed his tune today, you would believe him.

The guys is a wacko plain and simple.

So by 'today' you mean 'more than a decade ago'? The guy has spent the last ten years plus promoting eco-capitalism, but yeah... he just 'up and changed his tune today'.

Take off the ultra partisan blinders and look at reality. You guys are becoming dangerously unhinged.
Sorta like this guy was 10 years ago before he saw the light? Hmmm. Next up in the news: "Leopard Changes His Spots!"

Uhmm, sure. You can think the guy was nuts 10 years ago, I'm concerned with what he is now. I'm certain that quite a few people on here are nuts.

If you think people can't change their political ideology not only are you wrong, but of course you would have to explain how he changed his political ideology towards communism to begin with. (hint: he wasn't always one.)
Let's just say that it's not unreasonable for people to view this guy with a jaundice eye. LOL at characterizing these people as 'dangerously unhinged'...you sir are the quintessential liberal apologist of our day...you must be very proud. 😉 All in good fun. Let's just leave it at that.
 
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

You have to forgive model works......he is known for taking things out of context!!


If you have something to say on topic then say it, otherwise troll elsewhere.
 
w0w, obama hired a truther? that should make for some interesting commercials in 2012 election cycle
 
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Van Jones is the RED Jobs Czar.

Indeed.

If people want to see what Van Jones is about (and Obama) they should read the "manifesto" for the organization he founded called STORM (Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement)




"With a growing membership and a growing commitment to Marxist politics, STORM began rewriting out Points of unity and Constitution. The resulting documents signaled a clear commitment to communist politics, drawing primarily from traditions of Third World Marxism.

Our new points of Unity represented an unorthodox and somewhat eclectic form of Marxism. We drew on the strengths of the communist traditions while challenging it to provide a greater priority on gender, race, democracy and mass organizing . Specifically we upheld revolutionary democracy, revolutionary feminism, revolutionary internationalism, the central role of the working class, Urban Marxism and Third World Communism.

STORM's Points of Unity

REVOLUTIONARY DEMOCRACY: the belief that our movement will have to replace the falsley democratic capitalist state with a truly democratic people's government

REVOLUTIONARY FEMINISM: the belief that women's oppression is fundamnetal to this society and that we have to place "Sisters at the Center" of our struggle.

REVOLUTIONARY INTERNATIONALISM: the belief that white supremacy is a critical force impacting world politics and that Third World communities - inside and outside of the United States - along with white anti-racist allies need to work in solidarity to build the power we need to overthrow the global system of WHITE SUPREMACY.


CENTRAL ROLE of the WORKING CLASS: the belief that in order to defeat capitalism and other forms of oppression, the working class will have to play the central role in the revolutionary struggle.

URBAN MARXISM: the belief that the urban space was now the central site of revolutionary struggle, just as the factory and the point of production were in the days of Marx.

THIRD WORLD COMMUNISM: drawing on the revolutionary communist traditions from Asia, Africa and Latin America, including the recognition of the need for a disciplined revolutionary party rooted among oppressed people


Moving from Resistance to Revolution:

Our commitment to communist politics didn't give us any easy answers about what we should be doing to advance a revolutionary movement in the country. Other organizations with a Marxist analysis seemed to lack a practical program for building the kind of power needed to win our people's liberation.

Several of these communist groups emphasized the immediate building of the vanguard party. They thought the party should prepare to seize power when the people "spontaneously" rise up during imperialism's' inevitable crises. We believed that these groups had badly misaddressed the real state of imperialism and of social movements. They prematurely anticipated a people's uprising (which we didn't see on the immediate horizon) while underestimating the importance and difficulty of building power in oppressed communities to lay the groundwork for future UPRISINGS.

Other communist organizations - and many individual activists - were questioning the possibility of a revolutionary movement ever succeeding. They emphasized immersion in unions and mass struggles to the exclusion of intentional work to develop a revolutionary movement."



http://www.capitalresearch.org.../08/stormsummation.pdf
 
If my neighbor changes the oil in his car and dumps the used oil in my yard, the hostile response I would take to that is not environmentalism, it's the defense of my private property rights.

Likewise, if I have a fishing and tourism business on the river/bay/lake/etc and some company/factory dumps its waste in the water, killing all the fish and ruining my business, the response I take to that is also not environmentalism, but the defense of my private property rights and my right to do business in a capitalistic society, and to seek redress of legitimate damages.

This is the biggest challenge IMO with the brainwashed wingnuts. They've been misled into believing that the 2 examples above are communism/socialism, that defense of private property is ONLY when it's the property owner with his gun against some petty thief, and that otherwise capitalism is when the right to defend one's property (beyond that example, i.e. in court) only exists for a select few.
 
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: CPA

You have got to be kidding me.

So, if Chavez just upped and changed his tune today, you would believe him.

The guys is a wacko plain and simple.

So by 'today' you mean 'more than a decade ago'? The guy has spent the last ten years plus promoting eco-capitalism, but yeah... he just 'up and changed his tune today'.

Take off the ultra partisan blinders and look at reality. You guys are becoming dangerously unhinged.

LOL, so Van Jones is a Truther, yet it is CPA that is allegedly "dangerously unhinged". Silly liberal apologists and their evaporating credibility make me smile. Well done sir! :thumbsup:
 
Originally posted by: Vic
If my neighbor changes the oil in his car and dumps the used oil in my yard, the hostile response I would take to that is not environmentalism, it's the defense of my private property rights.

Likewise, if I have a fishing and tourism business on the river/bay/lake/etc and some company/factory dumps its waste in the water, killing all the fish and ruining my business, the response I take to that is also not environmentalism, but the defense of my private property rights and my right to do business in a capitalistic society, and to seek redress of legitimate damages.

This is the biggest challenge IMO with the brainwashed wingnuts. They've been misled into believing that the 2 examples above are communism/socialism, that defense of private property is ONLY when it's the property owner with his gun against some petty thief, and that otherwise capitalism is when the right to defend one's property (beyond that example, i.e. in court) only exists for a select few.

That is a very good analogy and i do believe your conclusion is correct.

Besides, as we all know, the US has NEVER been a capitalist nation nor would it be a prosperous one if it was. Extremes never work, which is probably why every first world nation is a mixed economy, that includes the UK and the US, neither socialist nor capitalist but taking what is best out of both and combining it.

Most people don't get that socialism actually doesn't have much to do with anything but the govrnments control over the free market, and as such, with all trade tarrifs and regulations, the US is probably the most socialistic nation on earth, it usually gets better under a liberal government though so there is hope.
 
Originally posted by: Corn
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: CPA

You have got to be kidding me.

So, if Chavez just upped and changed his tune today, you would believe him.

The guys is a wacko plain and simple.

So by 'today' you mean 'more than a decade ago'? The guy has spent the last ten years plus promoting eco-capitalism, but yeah... he just 'up and changed his tune today'.

Take off the ultra partisan blinders and look at reality. You guys are becoming dangerously unhinged.

LOL, so Van Jones is a Truther, yet it is CPA that is allegedly "dangerously unhinged". Silly liberal apologists and their evaporating credibility make me smile. Well done sir! :thumbsup:

Quite an impressive leap of logic there Corn, then again you never were the brightest bulb on the tree. Van Jones could be 'unhinged' for being a truther, but CPA wasn't talking about him being a truther, he was talking about his economic views. Furthermore my assessment of CPA was not in relation to Van Jones; one has no relation to the other.

CPA was attempting to equate the political stance of someone who has spent the last decade promoting capitalistic solutions to environmental problems with a currently avowed socialist, an incredibly stupid and illogical comparison to make. CPA has been blinded by partisanship, and it's made him unable to assess reality... that's why he is also unhinged. I'm really not sure what the confusion is here.
 
Originally posted by: Vic
If my neighbor changes the oil in his car and dumps the used oil in my yard, the hostile response I would take to that is not environmentalism, it's the defense of my private property rights.

Likewise, if I have a fishing and tourism business on the river/bay/lake/etc and some company/factory dumps its waste in the water, killing all the fish and ruining my business, the response I take to that is also not environmentalism, but the defense of my private property rights and my right to do business in a capitalistic society, and to seek redress of legitimate damages.

This is the biggest challenge IMO with the brainwashed wingnuts. They've been misled into believing that the 2 examples above are communism/socialism, that defense of private property is ONLY when it's the property owner with his gun against some petty thief, and that otherwise capitalism is when the right to defend one's property (beyond that example, i.e. in court) only exists for a select few.

You are simply incorrect. It is a fact that the dots peppering the night sky are stars. Feel free to prove me wrong.

You're usually better than bringing silly strawman to an argument, especially one that even the most stringent rightie wouldn't disagree with.
 
Originally posted by: Corn
Originally posted by: Vic
If my neighbor changes the oil in his car and dumps the used oil in my yard, the hostile response I would take to that is not environmentalism, it's the defense of my private property rights.

Likewise, if I have a fishing and tourism business on the river/bay/lake/etc and some company/factory dumps its waste in the water, killing all the fish and ruining my business, the response I take to that is also not environmentalism, but the defense of my private property rights and my right to do business in a capitalistic society, and to seek redress of legitimate damages.

This is the biggest challenge IMO with the brainwashed wingnuts. They've been misled into believing that the 2 examples above are communism/socialism, that defense of private property is ONLY when it's the property owner with his gun against some petty thief, and that otherwise capitalism is when the right to defend one's property (beyond that example, i.e. in court) only exists for a select few.

You are simply incorrect. It is a fact that the dots peppering the night sky are stars. Feel free to prove me wrong.

You're usually better than bringing silly strawman to an argument, especially one that even the most stringent rightie wouldn't disagree with.

Explain the straw man. Please. I'd love for you to going into more detail that I am 'simply incorrect.'

Environmental protection is as necessarily to the defense of property in a capitalistic society as are the police and the courts. You don't have the right to shit on another person's property. And it simply does not matter if the other person is poor or rich or or black or white.
 
The lengths the silly liberals will go to keep bailing a doomed ship is amusing. For example:

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Van Jones could be 'unhinged' for being a truther, but CPA wasn't talking about him being a truther, he was talking about his economic views.

I never claimed CPA was talking about him being a truther. I fail to see any relevance to that sentence.

Let me make this as simple as I can. You claim CPA to be "dangerously unhinged" while in the same breath defend a Truther. If you can't see the irony in that, I'd say that it is you who has been blinded by partisanship.



 
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Corn
Originally posted by: Vic
If my neighbor changes the oil in his car and dumps the used oil in my yard, the hostile response I would take to that is not environmentalism, it's the defense of my private property rights.

Likewise, if I have a fishing and tourism business on the river/bay/lake/etc and some company/factory dumps its waste in the water, killing all the fish and ruining my business, the response I take to that is also not environmentalism, but the defense of my private property rights and my right to do business in a capitalistic society, and to seek redress of legitimate damages.

This is the biggest challenge IMO with the brainwashed wingnuts. They've been misled into believing that the 2 examples above are communism/socialism, that defense of private property is ONLY when it's the property owner with his gun against some petty thief, and that otherwise capitalism is when the right to defend one's property (beyond that example, i.e. in court) only exists for a select few.

You are simply incorrect. It is a fact that the dots peppering the night sky are stars. Feel free to prove me wrong.

You're usually better than bringing silly strawman to an argument, especially one that even the most stringent rightie wouldn't disagree with.

Explain the straw man. Please. I'd love for you to going into more detail that I am 'simply incorrect.'

Environmental protection is as necessarily to the defense of property in a capitalistic society as are the police and the courts. You don't have the right to shit on another person's property. And it simply does not matter if the other person is poor or rich or or black or white.

The straw man is your entire post. You tell me Vic, how many righties do you know that wouldn't have an issue with a company dumping hazardus waste into a river which feeds their livelihood? Please. Your 2 pathetic examples have no relation to Van Jones or his ideology. If it were, you'd no doubt see few complaining. You ignore the varying degrees of environmentalism by equating one with all.
 
Originally posted by: Corn
The lengths the silly liberals will go to keep bailing a doomed ship is amusing. For example:

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Van Jones could be 'unhinged' for being a truther, but CPA wasn't talking about him being a truther, he was talking about his economic views.

I never claimed CPA was talking about him being a truther. I fail to see any relevance to that sentence.

Let me make this as simple as I can. You claim CPA to be "dangerously unhinged" while in the same breath defend a Truther. If you can't see the irony in that, I'd say that it is you who has been blinded by partisanship.

Seriously? And you accuse Vic for bringing up strawmen when all he did was to make an (IMO) excellent analogy and you are offering strawmen left and right and then conclude that since you are, it's fucking ironic?

It's ironic alright but the irony is lost on you.
 
Originally posted by: Corn
The lengths the silly liberals will go to keep bailing a doomed ship is amusing. For example:

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Van Jones could be 'unhinged' for being a truther, but CPA wasn't talking about him being a truther, he was talking about his economic views.

I never claimed CPA was talking about him being a truther. I fail to see any relevance to that sentence.

Let me make this as simple as I can. You claim CPA to be "dangerously unhinged" while in the same breath defend a Truther. If you can't see the irony in that, I'd say that it is you who has been blinded by partisanship.

At the time I did not know that he was a truther, and nowhere in any of my posts did I defend any of his views on 9/11. (it would appear that CPA did not know this either) I find truthers to be absolutely stupid and ridiculous, but the crazed right wingers are definitely giving them a run for their money recently. Furthermore, CPA's mental state and Van Jones' mental state have nothing to do with one another. I can call CPA crazy due to how he acts completely independantly of calling Van Jones crazy. There would only be hypocrisy in that case if I were defending Jones' mental state instead of correcting innacurate depictions of his economic and political positions. This is pretty basic stuff.

What you did was make a leap of logic not based upon what I had said, but upon what you wish I had said.
 
I listened to his speech, it was painful. Can someone explain to me what the hell an eco-apartheid is?
 
Originally posted by: Druidx
I listened to his speech, it was painful. Can someone explain to me what the hell an eco-apartheid is?

Well in his book towards the end he compares ecology using comparisons between the Titanic and the Amistad .


I think he is trying to be many things at once, the 9/11 stuff aside. Part civil rights activists and he wants to be an authority on the environment and economy when his education is based on neither. He is an attorney. It is like a senator deciding if you have cancer, not their area of expertise.

That is why the Czars need to go, every last one of them. If they are not approved by the voters they shouldn't be on capitol hill providing advice on what the voters should do or how money should be spent.







 
Originally posted by: Druidx
I listened to his speech, it was painful. Can someone explain to me what the hell an eco-apartheid is?

It's exactly what I described above. If you're poor and try to defend your property rights from corporate pollution (or similar), wingnut sheeple will call you a communist.
 
Originally posted by: Modelworks
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

You have to forgive model works......he is known for taking things out of context!!


If you have something to say on topic then say it, otherwise troll elsewhere.

troll elsewhere...you are taking the article out of context...i think you need to look in a mirror!!
 
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Originally posted by: Modelworks
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

You have to forgive model works......he is known for taking things out of context!!


If you have something to say on topic then say it, otherwise troll elsewhere.

troll elsewhere...you are taking the article out of context...i think you need to look in a mirror!!

What was taken out of context ? Reading the mind of a troll is not an ability I was born with.
 
Originally posted by: Modelworks
Originally posted by: Druidx
I listened to his speech, it was painful. Can someone explain to me what the hell an eco-apartheid is?

Well in his book towards the end he compares ecology using comparisons between the Titanic and the Amistad .


I think he is trying to be many things at once, the 9/11 stuff aside. Part civil rights activists and he wants to be an authority on the environment and economy when his education is based on neither. He is an attorney. It is like a senator deciding if you have cancer, not their area of expertise.

That is why the Czars need to go, every last one of them. If they are not approved by the voters they shouldn't be on capitol hill providing advice on what the voters should do or how money should be spent.

You do realize that Senators make decisions about the environment all the time, and they are a bunch of attorneys... right? Furthermore, there are tons of people in Washington who make policy all the time who aren't approved by the voters. (I assume you mean the Senate?) It's been that way for longer than any of us have been alive and government couldn't function otherwise.
 
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: Rastus
He's done now.

Check signatory #46.

lulz, who thinks he'll still have a job monday?

Will obama distance himself, will he throw him under the bus? I can see it now, "This is not the Van Jones I once knew"

he will distance himself first. then in a week he will throw him under the bus.

 
Back
Top