Obama Aide Van Jones Resigns After GOP Attacks, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 14 times


reply posted on 6-9-2009 @ 12:19 AM by MagicaRose
reply to post by Pabama


Well, even if he's resigns could he still give advice to Obama?
Wha would stop him from doing that?
Apparently Obama wanted him ther in the first place.



reply posted on 6-9-2009 @ 01:26 AM by HunkaHunka
reply to post by Helghast1


Actually if you are aware you will notice that the GOP attacks everything just looking for something to stick.

Did they hit paydirt this time, maybe they did. But that doesn't stop them from finding an attack angle on every action.

This is a political tactic which grates on my nerves, no matter who is the perpetrator.



[edit on 6-9-2009 by HunkaHunka]


reply posted on 6-9-2009 @ 01:29 AM by Helghast1
Originally posted by HunkaHunka
reply to post by Helghast1


Actually if you are aware you will notice that the GOP attacks everything just looking for something to stick.

Did they hit paydirt this time, maybe they did. But that doesn't stop them from finding an attack angle on every action.







i already know how you feel about this issue, but you should remove your Reagan and Bush Speeches to children. theres a huge difference between those and the one Obama wants to give. Reason being, they didnt make the children in every school in the country sit down and watch the president's speech, this was only in one school, not broadcasted to every school. Obama wants to broadcast to EVERY SINGLE SCHOOL. big difference.

and its funny to hear olbermann call republicans "fear of a black man".

still playin the race card olbey? gtfo.



[edit on 6-9-2009 by Helghast1]



reply posted on 6-9-2009 @ 01:33 AM by HunkaHunka
reply to post by Helghast1


So do you support the political tactic of attacking an opponent at every action? non-stop? Even when it means being completely intellectually dishonest?


reply posted on 6-9-2009 @ 01:33 AM by Helghast1
Originally posted by HunkaHunka
reply to post by Helghast1


So do you support the political tactic of attacking an opponent at every action? non-stop? Even when it means being completely intellectually dishonest?



democrats seemed to do it just fine for 8 years. pay back is a b****


reply posted on 6-9-2009 @ 01:40 AM by HunkaHunka
reply to post by Helghast1


Ok so you do.

Pity... I sure don't. It doesn't resonate with me at all, no matter who is doing it.

I think it is the lowest form of politics there is.


reply posted on 6-9-2009 @ 02:47 AM by GigaloCool
Originally posted by HunkaHunka
reply to post by Helghast1


Actually if you are aware you will notice that the GOP attacks everything just looking for something to stick.

Did they hit paydirt this time, maybe they did. But that doesn't stop them from finding an attack angle on every action.

This is a political tactic which grates on my nerves, no matter who is the perpetrator.



[edit on 6-9-2009 by HunkaHunka]


Actually if YOU were aware, you would have known what a dirtbag van Jones was. Read Michelle Malkins new book and educate yourself.


reply posted on 6-9-2009 @ 04:10 AM by sos37
reply to post by HunkaHunka


WHAT-EVER! If this were a Republican resigning and Fox news blamed "Democratic attacks" as the cause you would be slandering Fox news and saying the Republican got what he deserved.

This guy got caught with his pants down. And it was on tape. And you just can't admit that a Democrat screwed up - OHHHH NO... It's the REPUBLICANS fault because they attack EVERYTHING.

I was actually starting to think you had an open mind, hunka, but this proves you are nothing but a disgusting shill for Democrats.


reply posted on 6-9-2009 @ 04:38 AM by jdub297
Originally posted by HunkaHunka
reply to post by Helghast1

It doesn't resonate with me at all, no matter who is doing it.

I think it is the lowest form of politics there is.


It's not "politics" at all. It's exposing lies and an unspoken, even denied, agenda to wrest control away from political debate.

None of these "czars" was subject to "advice and consent," as would a Cabinet member, although they wield cabinet-level power over policy and can even usurp Congress' authority by regulation instead of legislation.

Just consider a few of them:

Carol Browner, Climate Czar, formerly of Socialist International, supporter of “global governance,” says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change.

Cass Sunstein, Regulatory czar, believes: “ There is no liberty without dependency.”

John Holdren, Presidential Science Advisor, advocates America’s “de-industrialization.” He says: ”[L]aws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution.”
"Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential.”

Mark Lloyd, FCC Diversity czar, wants to enforce “localism” with fines and fees. In other words, the Fairness Doctrine” will be used to politically monitor and punish broadcasters.

Ezekiel Emmanuel, Health Care czar, is a proponent of the “complete lives” regime that health care resources should be allocated by age and to “productive” Americans. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.”

Daniel Chu, Energy Secretary, has “nightmares about coal.” He advocates that Americans pay “European prices” for gasoline and energy.

Jeff Jones, Weather Underground co-founder, with mentor Bill Ayers. The Apollo Alliance, under Jeff Jones' direction, created Barack Obama’s stimulus bill that absolutely no one in Congress read, but Obama swore that if it wasn’t passed immediately, the world would end.

Here’s what Jeff Jones KNOWS about Obama’s agenda:

“He is setting Clinton up to be the face of his effort to end the Iraq war. He is going to sucessfully extort concessions from Detroit. He will convince Congress to pass a major stimulus package.

These various initiatives, which will collectively set the nation on a path towards redistributing financial resources downward, are presented as unconnected pieces of legislation but actually they are interlocking components of Obama's coherent multi-layered agenda. His centrist appointments are a smokescreen; they co-opt the moderate center. Even Lenin would be impressed!”

Van Jones, communist and founder of STORM, whose philosophy says: “All of STORMS members developed a basic understanding of and commitment to Revolutionary Marxist Policies.”


Criticizing THAT is not politics. It is preservation of a Constitutional Republic.

Deny ignorance!
jw



reply posted on 6-9-2009 @ 04:53 AM by mental modulator
Originally posted by jdub297
Originally posted by HunkaHunka
reply to post by Helghast1

It doesn't resonate with me at all, no matter who is doing it.

I think it is the lowest form of politics there is.


It's not "politics" at all. It's exposing lies and an unspoken, even denied, agenda to wrest control away from political debate.

None of these "czars" was subject to "advice and consent," as would a Cabinet member, although they wield cabinet-level power over policy and can even usurp Congress' authority by regulation instead of legislation.

Just consider a few of them:


Criticizing THAT is not politics. It is preservation of a Constitutional Republic.

Deny ignorance!
jw


Word, certainly these czars did not smell as czary I guess


Donald E. Powell.
Bush’s Czar to Rebuild Gulf Coast

John P. Walters.
Bush's Drug Czar

Karen Hughes.
Bush's Public Diplomacy Czar

Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute.
Bush's 'War Czar'

Randall Tobias.
Bush's AIDS Czar

Dr. Mark Dybul.
Bush's other AIDS Czar

Richard Stickler.
Bush's Mine Safety Czar

John Negroponte.
Bush's Intelligence Czar

Otto Reich.
Bush's Latin America czar

Carlton Turner.
Reagan's Drug Czar

David Stockman
Reagan's Budget Czar
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^