Van Jones, Glenn Beck, And The Moral/Intellectual Bankruptcy Of The Left

The facts: Van Jones, a self avowed Communist, black nationalist, truther, Mumia supporter Katrina race-baiter, and potty mouth resigned after an increasing number of Americans became privy to his radicalism due to primarily Glenn Beck on Fox News, and the right wing blogosphere.

The Van Jones story only became a story for the MSM when he announced that he was resigning. As many have already noted,  people who only get their news from the MSM,  heard about Van Jones for the first time today. This is the same MSM that was is more than happy to report negative story after story about Sarah Palin during the 2008 election campaign.

In fact, according to Robert Stacy McCain:

…this is the real story: The shameful failure of the MSM to do its job in reporting on the Obama administration.

But it gets worse.

Now, the left, outraged because this charlatan was found out, is after the guy who led the charge. Apparently, like good little Marxists, they were hoping that Jones’ “green” (read Communist) policies could be sneaked in under the public radar. How dare there be whistle blowers out there  informing the public about what’s going on.

Keith Olberman is now soliciting the Kos Kids for dirt on Glenn Beck, which anyone who’s ever listened to Beck knows is absurd because Beck is an open book. He’s confessed  his sins publicly on his radio program, already, you idiots. As RightWingSparkle says:

There isn’t a thing anyone could dig around for and come up with that Beck himself hasn’t put out there on radio or TV.

So what does a *large number of subversives in the leftwing blogosphere do? Why they make  up a vicious rumor, and they spread it far and wide, hoping they’ll convince people that they’re making a valid point about how hurtful spreading hateful lies can be.  The problem here is, of course, that everything that was uncovered about Van Jones was demonstrably true, and he was an adviser to the President with a 60 billion dollar budget, and they’re just spreading a ridiculous lie about a Fox News host. So…um…there’s a big difference.

What a disgusting spectacle: They’re lashing out like babies…taking wild swings at their bete noire du jour, demonstrating even more, for all to see, how morally and intellectually bankrupt they are.

*Correction: I had previously said “what does the leftwing blogosphere do”?, painting with too broad a brush…obviously, not *everyone* in the leftwing blogosphere is taking part in that.

Advertisements

74 thoughts on “Van Jones, Glenn Beck, And The Moral/Intellectual Bankruptcy Of The Left

  1. Wait a minute!

    “According to Trevor Loudon, a New Zealand blogger, ”

    This is what you guys have been citing all this time? A “New Zealand blogger”? I’ve very relieved. I thought it might be one of these crazy American bloggers!

    Moral/Intellectual Bankruptcy Of The Left? You guys must be missing the “shame chromosome”.

    Like

  2. Here’s CNN, um…a little late to the party, reporting yesterday, what New Zeal had reported back in April:

    “In 2005, Jones was quoted in the East Bay Express as describing the impact that the acquittals in the police beating case of Rodney King in 1992 had on him. “By August, I was a Communist,” he says in the article, describing his sense of radicalization at the time.”

    http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/06/obama.adviser.resigns/index.html

    Sort of makes my point, doesn’t it?

    Like

  3. Also, it’s not exactly mortally and intellectually rigorous to say that “the left wing blogoshpere” started that stupid Glenn Beck story. There are millions of people in the left wing blogoshpere. That was 1, 2, 4, maybe 8 persons? You know this is cheap opportunism, you don’t need me to explain the math.. I assure that all I’ve ever said about this to anyone is “this is a hoax”, and I don’t deserve to be blamed.

    I’m told that the site explicitly says that this story isn’t true. Which, I suppose, ought to count for something, but it’s not funny and it doesn’t make a point, and if they didn’t know you were going to use it against all of us like this, then it wasn’t very smart either. I hope their server takes a lightning strike.

    Like

  4. No, this is more than 1,2,4, or 8 persons. It takes large numbers to effect google searches the way this has already. I can direct you to a post that explains the sheer numbers that have to be involved:

    http://www.mediaite.com/online/anti-beck-backlash-hits-nauseating-extreme-with-murder-and-rape-meme/

    But you make a valid point: obviously, not everyone in the leftwing blogosphere is doing this, or cheering them on. But a large number of people certainly are.

    Like

  5. Okay, so CNN is willing to go on the record as saying “He was quoted in the East Bay Express” which looks like something they give out free in Health food stores. Every college town has a paper like this.

    The quote sounds pretty radical, but moving from “grey capitalism to ecocapitalism” certainly doesn’t sound communist. Yeah, I know, he says that’s not enough.+ Jones never actually endorses things like reparations, so why does he bring them up? I don’t know, but guys who express themselves like this probably ought to stay in the private sector. I’m sure he’ll perform brilliantly there.

    The evidence that you’re showing me that he’s an “avowed” communist, to use Beck’s trademarked term, is pretty weak, and only going to convince those who want to be convinced, but either Obama wants him gone now, or he pussied out, so I’m fine with his being out of here. If that’s the essential thing, I guess we agree.

    You guys don’t seem to want to understand that black politicians need to persuade radicalized black audiences to move toward the center, and they may use the radical language toward that end. If a white conservative president told a black audience that reparations “don’t go far enough”. I don’t think Glenn Beck would have a problem understanding that. The white conservative president would mean the same thing Obama meant– that economic opportunity is the only satisfactory answer to the problems of black America, not paying out a lot of money. Obama has said as much several times. It’s a basic idea that conservatives should be able to get behind, even if there’s honest disagreement about how economic opportunity is best achieved, but Beck sees Obama talking to a black audience and he doesn’t see a man trying to presuade, He assumes that they are all together. He sees co-conspirators sharing a hidden agenda. It’s foolish to say that all Obama’s critics are racist, but in the case of Glenn Beck, the hood fits, and he will take you down.

    Like

  6. Well, I just did a google search for Glenn Beck and rape and murder did not come up in any of the search suggestions.

    Screenshot:

    Hypothesis. The guy who wrote the blog is a moron who doesn’t know how google works, and his previous searches for Glenn Beck Rap and Murder were influencing his search results.

    Anyway, cry me a fucking river. This is manna from Heaven for Glenn. He’ll do a week’s worth of shows on this bullshit.

    Note: the banner with the flags is making it hard for me to see what I’m typing so pardon me if there’s some really ugly typos.

    Like

  7. I did a quick Google on “Glenn Beck rape” and found entries from Digg, DU, and the Examiner. That’s already significant penetration.

    This is manna from Heaven for Glenn. He’ll do a week’s worth of shows on this bullshit.

    Doesn’t make it right.

    Like

  8. >>You guys don’t seem to want to understand that black politicians need to persuade radicalized black audiences to move toward the center, and they may use the radical language toward that end.

    What absolute crap. If a white politician had said some of the same things that Jones did to a disaffected part of the white population (and yes, there is a bigger disaffected white population than there is a black one) he would have been out of there so fast it would make your head spin and that would have been the right thing too.

    Ever since the ’60’s, we have allowed the left and the “radicalized blacks” to say the most outrageous and vile things and allowed you clowns to bully us with white guilt while trying to regulate the things the right says. Those days are over.

    We’ve got a significant number of black politicians and “community organizers” who got to their positions not by trying to appeal to the best in their communities but rather the worst. They have race baited, blamed all the troubles of the world on “whitey”, treated their constituents like children who need handouts rather than adults who need leadership and representation and have worsened race relations in this country not made them better. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Maxine Waters, Kwese Mfume, Barbara Lee, Sheila Jackson Lee, Calypso Louie Farrakhan, Ray Nagin, Rev. Jeremiah Wright (awful lot of reverends in the black community preaching hate) and on and on and on. Van Jones holds a prominent place in this community and all of them just happen to be Democrats.

    These people have no intentions of trying to get their “radicalized” constituents to move to the middle. They just want to incite them by reinforcing the worst racist views and ride that anger to power and then reward them by “spreading the wealth around” rather than telling them to grow up, work hard, inspire their children to work hard and take advantage of the opportunities that are available to them just like generations of white people have. There is a huge percentage of black people who do just this but they don’t make headlines just as the vast majority of white people who play by the rules and who built this country don’t.

    I’ve been saying for over a year that the worst thing that could happen for race relations was for Obama to get elected president. He and his followers have no intention of moving to the center but rather trying to force their twisted, racist and destructive ideology on a country that wants no part of it and then chuckleheads like you would try to blame the rest of us for not being understanding enough. Thanks for being so predictable.

    Like

  9. I look forward to some fool “finding” something bad about Beck (something he’s talked about on the air), they’ll claim they “dug up some dirt” on Beck and ask why he won’t answer the allegations.

    Minitru will ignore anything from Beck except to paraphrase some quotes (like how Steyn compared Obama to Kim Jong Il), and voila, Beck is “on the run” against these important “allegations”.

    They think they still control the horizontal, vertical and channel changer on your tv.

    Like

  10. Of course that doesn’t make it right. It’s wrong. I didn’t do it.. I’m not defending it. I’ve been careful to debunk it wherever I go. I just don’t care very much.

    Geoff, the article said “a top search suggestion.” for “Glenn Beck” The implication was that Google had been “bombed” and the rape story had been brought to the top of the list, if you search for “Glenn Beck. ”

    You did a search for “Glenn Beck rape”? And you found the Glenn Beck rape story? Wow, really? Your first time on Google?

    Of course, if enough right wing bloggers start expressing their outrage about the Glenn Beck rape story I’m, sure it’ll move up the list for “Glenn Beck”.

    Jack Straw. I wasn’t talking about Jones, I was talking about Obama, hence the word “president”. Screw Van Jones. Based on NiceDeb quoting CNN quoting the SF Bay Pennysaver or whatever quoting Jones, I’m not really convinced the man was an “avowed” communist, but he seems sort of loopy and I’m glad he’s gone.

    Why is everybody obsessed with digging up dirt on people? Glenn Beck is the star of “The Glenn Beck show”, where he says insane things that make no sense. That’s all that matters. Last week, he seemed to be saying that John D Rockefeller was a communist. You might as well say Ronald Reagan was a communist. Incidentally, a google search for “Glenn Beck batshit” gets 51,100 results.

    Like

  11. >>Jack Straw. I wasn’t talking about Jones, I was talking about Obama, hence the word “president”

    Exactly who do you think hired Jones and why do you think he made him an unaccountable czar as opposed to putting him through a normal vetting process? Obama. The same guy who hire Mark Lloyd who says he adores Hugo Chavez and is trying to implement his same media restrictions. The same guy who hired Carol Browner who has held leadership positions in openly socialistic agencies. The same guy who has put together a shadow government full of ultra-left, socialist/marxist clowns because this was the best way to hide them from scrutiny.

    Obama was raised by marxists, in his own words he sought out radical and marxist professors, he ran for office with the endorsement of communists and when he finally gets the big job he surrounds himself with the same people but you think, what, he’s a moderate?

    Does a moderate take over banks, the auto industry and make a play to do the same thing with the healthcare and energy industries? Does a moderate buddy up with socialist tyrants in Latin America while refusing to support a gov’t that is trying to prevent their country from falling to another one through constitutionally lawful mean? Does a moderate ram through a “stimulus” plan that is nothing more than a payoff to his radical friends in the unions, ACORN, etc., while sinking the country further into recession and debt?

    Obama is a not a moderate. In his own words he is seeking to fundamentally change this country and we are seeing the people he intends to employ that change and the ends he is shooting for and what he wants is anything but moderate change. It’s socialism, marxism, collectivism. It’s high time people started opening their eyes and see what is going on.

    >>Why is everybody obsessed with digging up dirt on people?

    Perhaps if Obama wasn’t trying to sneak these clowns in the back door or the msm did it’s job instead of trying to anoint and protect Obama people wouldn’t need to.

    >>Incidentally, a google search for “Glenn Beck batshit” gets 51,100 results.

    Oh, I see, you really weren’t interested since you find it perfectly acceptable to dig up dirt on a talk show host.

    Worried about what’s coming out next on Team Obama? You should be.

    Like

  12. Jack Straw wrote:

    “These people have no intentions of trying to get their “radicalized” constituents to move to the middle. They just want to incite them by reinforcing the worst racist views and ride that anger to power and then reward them by “spreading the wealth around” rather than telling them to grow up, work hard, inspire their children to work hard and take advantage of the opportunities that are available to them just like generations of white people have. There is a huge percentage of black people who do just this but they don’t make headlines just as the vast majority of white people who play by the rules and who built this country don’t.”

    Now, I was making a case that Obama, (who DID work had and take advantage of the opportunities that he was given) was saying the opposite of that, or at least that he could have. Beck’s whole “backdoor reparations agenda” conspiracy theory is based on a rather strained interpretation on 1 quote from Obama, that “reparations don’t go far enough” I presented an alternate interpretation of that quote, which I think is a lot more sensible and likely than an elaborate hidden agenda that would have to involve the entire Democratic party, and I think I could dig up a quote that reinforces my interpretation if I needed to.

    But it would be a lot of work and why should I bother? You don’t seem to be interested in a real argument. You contradicted me, but without making a case. You gave me your opinion– your PREDICTABLE opinion– of Van Jones,
    Al Sharpton, Maxine Waters, Jesse Jackson, and a whole bunch of people that I wasn’t talking about.

    I gotta tell ya Jack, it would be easy to make a case that you’re racist based on the fact that I make a point about Obama and you list a whole bunch of other black people like it’s supposed to prove something. Could I make a COMPELLING case that you’re a racist? Maybe not, . but here’s the thing about that. Your buddy, Glenn Beck, just WAYYYY lowered the bar for accusations of racism. He basically said Obama is a racist because he knows Van Jones, without really proving that Van Jones is a racist. I’m pretty sure you could prove Martin Luther King is a racist by this logic. Afer all, there’s that picture of him shaking hands with Malcolm X.

    So here we are. Do I accuse you of racism? Nah. As a member of the left blogosphere, I’m just too morally and intellectually bankrupt to care if you’re a racist or not.

    Like

  13. Same old talking points Jack. You’re not interested in addressing my argument with an original thought so why am I supposed to research all this vague innuendo?

    YOU

    ARE

    A

    DINING

    ROOM

    TABLE

    and I have already wasted a whole can of Lemon Pledge on you.

    Like

  14. >>I presented an alternate interpretation of that quote, which I think is a lot more sensible and likely than an elaborate hidden agenda that would have to involve the entire Democratic party, and I think I could dig up a quote that reinforces my interpretation if I needed to.

    Dig, don’t dig. Doesn’t matter to me. You can twist any words to mean what you want them to. Here’s an Obama quote, see how you interpret it. “I just want to spread the wealth around a little bit”. How do you interpret that?

    Well let me give you my interpretation, wealth isn’t spread in a democracy it’s earned and the President of the United States has no business even talking about wealth redistribution and yet not only is Obama talking about it, he is doing it.

    How would you interpret that? Why should I care because you are so predictable (see what I did there, and I didn’t even need to resort to typing in caps). What’s even more predictable, and tedious, and I might add an increasingly tired and lame tactic is for lefties such as yourself calling anyone who accurately repeats the words and actions of people on your side as racist. Here’s a tip, it’s not working anymore.

    If you actually listened to Glenn Beck, which I will admit I rarely do but I have listened to his comments on this issue repeatedly, then you would have to admit that he did nothing but repeat what Jones, Obama, and others in this administration have said and called it for what it is, racism. That is if you are being honest and not partisan.

    When Van Jones comes out blames “whitey” for intentionally poisoning blacks, that’s racist. When Van Jones calls himself a “rowdy black nationalist” that’s racist. Pointing out that those words and the people who say them have no place in government, it’s not.

    When John Conyers re-introduces H.R. 40 as he has every year since 1989 calling for reparations far beyond anything ever discussed, that was racist.

    When Kweisi Mfume accused Bush of wanting to “take blacks back to the days of Jim Crow”, that was racist.

    When Al Sharpton helped Tawana Brawly try to frame a white police officer for rape or when he led a violent boycott of Jewish store owners in NYC that resulted in a riot and death, that was racist.

    When Jesse Jackson called NYC “Hymie town”, that was racist.

    When the Congressional Black Caucus (as opposed to the Congressional White Caucus which oddly seems not to exist) votes reflexively on racial lines, that’s racist.

    When I, Glenn Beck or anyone else calls someone for saying or acting in a certain manner strictly on racial lines or for racial advantage, that’s not racist. It’s the truth.

    Do I care whether you believe I’m a racist or not? I’m trying hard but at this moment I can’t think of anything I care less about. In any case, if I decide to become a racist apparently I can always become a member of your party and fit right in.

    Like

  15. >>and I have already wasted a whole can of Lemon Pledge on you.

    Yes, you’re an intellectual titan alright.

    Answer me this, Einstein, why is it that as soon as Jones’ words and actions were made presented to the public at large, he was gone from the Obama administration in a matter of days in the dead of night over a holiday weekend?

    Try hard not to be a typical dishonest liberal and put the blame where it belongs, on Jones and Obama.

    Like

  16. “Worried about what’s coming out next on Team Obama? You should be.”

    Why? Are my Team Obama collectables going to go down in value?

    Wealth redistribution is what any economy is. The defintion of the word “Democracy” has little or nothing to do with economic system.. Whatever Obama said, or whatever Bush said, in real earning, the rich got richer and everyone from the middle class down got poorer over the Bush Years, even though worker productivity went up. So the worker earned more, got less. That’s not a quote, that’s real wealth redistribution that actually happened, because of the way Bush shaped the system.

    Like

  17. >>Wealth redistribution is what any economy is. The defintion of the word “Democracy” has little or nothing to do with economic system..

    What the hell are you even saying? You didn’t like the Bush tax cuts so that makes it ok for Obama to redistribute wealth by forcing the Chrysler and GM into bankruptcy and then giving the unions a disproportionate amount of the companies ownership in return? You didn’t like the Bush tax cuts so it’s ok for Obama to sneak billions to his special interest groups such as ACORN in the stimulus that didn’t stimulate?

    You clearly have no understanding of free market economics, the impact of the rise of global markets or for that matter how government is supposed to interact with the economy in this particular democracy. The US is a democracy based on free markets with as little government intrusion as possible. Obama is trying to fundamentally change the relationship between the economy and government and many, a majority I would say based on people finally starting to realize what is going on and how they are reacting, don’t like it. That’s not racism, that’s a desire to retain the things that made this country what it is. I award you zero points.

    >>Whatever Obama said, or whatever Bush said, in real earning, the rich got richer and everyone from the middle class down got poorer over the Bush Years, even though worker productivity went up. So the worker earned more, got less. That’s not a quote, that’s real wealth redistribution that actually happened, because of the way Bush shaped the system.

    You may not have noticed but Bush is no longer President. I know its hard for you guys to stop blaming everything on a guy who has been President since the beginning of the year but you need to start blaming the person sitting in the White House now.

    Besides, and I know this will come as a shock, many of us didn’t support Bush on everything he did. See, we didn’t build a cult of personality around the next messiah, we just voted for a guy who mostly represented our ideas and was infinitely better than either of the two alternatives, Gore or Kerry. That allowed us to criticize Bush when we didn’t agree with him. You guys might try that with Obama every once in a while, build some credibility.

    So if we are going to get into an economics argument now, perhaps you can tell me what affect having some of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, a trade imbalance that never gets addressed, illegal immigration which depresses wages and all the other external factors that go into wage and productivity calculations might have had.

    In fact, I’ll give you a challenge. As you can see from this article from the Center for Immigration Studies, a completely non-partisan agency concerned with all aspects of immigration, illegal immigration has a huge affect on depressing wages.

    >>As for wage suppression, all studies show that the large infusion of immigrants has depressed the wages of low skilled workers. It is the illegal immigrant component of the immigration flow that has most certainly caused the most damage but there is no way to isolate their singular harm. But even these studies most likely underestimate the true adverse impact because there is a floor on legal wages set by minimum wage laws that do not allow the market to set the actual wage level. What is known is that wages in the low wage labor market have tended to stagnate for some time. It is not just that the availability of massive numbers of illegal immigrants depress wages, it is the fact that their shear numbers keep wages from rising over time and that is the real harm experienced by citizen workers in the low skilled labor market.

    Furthermore, illegal immigration has a disproportionately negative affect on the black and minority community.

    >>Because most illegal immigrants overwhelmingly seek work in the low skilled labor market and because the black American labor force is so disproportionately concentrated in this same low wage sector, there is little doubt that there is significant overlap in competition for jobs in this sector of the labor market. Given the inordinately high unemployment rates for low skilled black workers (the highest for all racial and ethnic groups for whom data is collected), it is obvious that the major looser in this competition are low skilled black workers.

    http://www.cis.org/articles/2008/briggstestimony040408.html

    I did not support Bush in his push for amnesty because, among other things, as you can see from this fact based (in terms you probably use, “reality based”) article, illegal immigration has a huge affect on wage depression particularly in the minority community. Obama also supports amnesty as well as an even more open border philosophy. Do you and does that make you a racist like Obama?

    See how that game works?

    Like

  18. Let’s see… do I read Jack’s incredibly long post, or do I hit myself repeatedly in the head with this hammer?

    OW! OW! OW! OW!

    Like

  19. ricky: Obviously, that’s just a malicious rumor, since Glenn Beck doesn’t have a dick.

    Okay, I’m just kidding. Glenn Beck does have a dick. In fact, we were gay lovers for three years, and it was the best sex of my life. I became so embittered when he left me, I started my own cable News show, “Countdown with Keith Olberman”.

    Like

  20. Pingback: StealthCereal | “Van Jones’ resignation: Glenn Beck gets a scalp, Obama gets a white feather” and related posts

  21. Of course that doesn’t make it right. It’s wrong. I didn’t do it.. I’m not defending it.

    Funny – it sure sounded like you were. In fact, it sounded like you were trying to trivialize the harm and make it seem as though this situation was all upside for Beck.

    You did a search for “Glenn Beck rape”? And you found the Glenn Beck rape story? Wow, really? Your first time on Google?

    No, I did a search for “Glenn Beck rape” and at a glance found several large liberal sites promoting the story. Which was the object of my search ==> to see how much play the story was getting by the left. As I said, it’s getting some penetration into the lefty blogging community.

    It’s just another data point – no reason to get hysterical or personal over it.

    Like

  22. Who or what is “MINITRU”?

    Kind of a dumb question for a guy who rushes to critique other’s googling skills.

    Let’s see… do I read Jack’s incredibly long post, or do I hit myself repeatedly in the head with this hammer? OW! OW! OW! OW!

    And a slow reader, to boot.

    Like

  23. >>Let’s see… do I read Jack’s incredibly long post, or do I hit myself repeatedly in the head with this hammer?

    Choosing to hit yourself in the head with a hammer rather than respond to someone who rebuts your “feelings” and insult based crap posts rather than argue the facts?

    Yep, you’re a lefty.

    Like

  24. So this blackbelt guy may be onto something with this newfangled googling stuff. Why, I just plugged “Van Jones STORM” into that search engine thingy, and out popped lots of places talking about his long-term, deep involvement with the group, and the group’s communist philosophy. It’s like blackbelt was more interested about complaining about the choice of information aggregator than the information itself.

    Like

  25. Wealth redistribution is what any economy is.

    That’s semantic stupidity. Wealth distribution is what any economy is. Wealth redistribution is what governments do to “correct” the economy’s distribution.

    Like

  26. Here’s the thing. I’m not a crackbrained conspiracy theorist who’s worried about oligarhy. I like America. I liked America when Bush was president, but if you average out the last ten years, any day when Bush is not president is an above average day in my book.

    I think Van Jones is a bright qualified guy who will do great work in the private sector, but he was a little nutty and I’m glad he’s gone. I don’t think he was a danger, but he was a political liability and now he’s gone. Fine Have at it, you guys. See how many advisers to Obama you can take down. Slime it up.

    America survived GW Bush and Dick Cheney. David Addington was a REAL czar, a crazy radical with dangerous ideas and enormous influnece, and we survived him. So I think we’ll survive Commie Obama and Fascist Beck.

    Like

  27. Strictly speaking, the difference between distribution and redistribution is that redistribution can not take place if no distribution occurred prior to the aforementioned distribution… so the distinction is meaningless as long as there was an economy prior to the Obama administration, the Bush administration, the Clinton administration, or whatever is that we’re talking about.

    Like

  28. “Wealth redistribution is what governments do to “correct” the economy’s distribution.”

    Republicans call it “tax cuts” You may think that Tax Cuts are a good thing, and so do I in principle but tghere’s no denying that it’s exactly what you’ve described here.

    Like

  29. So reviewing all of blackbelt’s comments, I liked this one:

    “The guy who wrote the blog is a moron who doesn’t know how google works, and his previous searches for Glenn Beck Rap and Murder were influencing his search results.”

    and I agree that Jones should stay in the private sector. I have no problem with him attempting to reform society organically, by competing in the marketplace of ideas. But putting him in the government is a mistake.

    As far as Obama’s “reparations” comment: I don’t think anybody here mentioned that. But in the same breath that he said that he didn’t want reparations, he offered examples of universal health care and guaranteed college as appropriate surrogates for direct reparations.

    His philosophy, apparently, is that providing universal access in any area where minorities are underrepresented, is a modern, sustainable version of reparations. Unfortunately they’re only sustainable if you understand the economy from the perspective of a social worker, where the only funding limit is the greed of eeevil capitalists.

    Like

  30. Republicans call it “tax cuts” You may think that Tax Cuts are a good thing, and so do I in principle but tghere’s no denying that it’s exactly what you’ve described here.

    No, tax cuts are an amelioration of wealth redistribution.

    Like

  31. >>Republicans call it “tax cuts” You may think that Tax Cuts are a good thing, and so do I in principle but tghere’s no denying that it’s exactly what you’ve described here.

    No, Republicans do not call tax cuts wealth redistribution. Wealth is created by the private market and not government. Government only takes money.

    Republicans and more to the point conservatives, accept taxes as a means of paying for the common good; roads, post office, national defense, etc.. Only Democrats, and far left ones at that, assume it is government’s job to take money from the productive class and redistribute it to those who contribute little to nothing.

    That’s wealth distribution and if you don’t understand that then you don’t understand the difference between democracy and socialism.

    Like

  32. So I think we’ll survive Commie Obama and Fascist Beck.

    The difference in legacies is enormous. Bush will have left no lasting legacy on society or the economy, and Obama will completely eradicate any effects of his foreign policy within a year. But Obama intends for his influence on society to be greater than FDR’s or LBJ’s, and like theirs, the weights of his programs on the economy will be with us forever.

    We’ve found that our 3 most prominent social programs, the legacy of FDR and LBR, are heading toward financial disaster. Obama’s just throwing gasoline on those fires.

    Like

  33. That’s wealth distribution and if you don’t understand that then you don’t understand the difference between democracy and socialism.

    I’m thinking you meant “capitalism,” not “socialism.”

    Like

  34. >>So I think we’ll survive Commie Obama and Fascist Beck.

    Please explain how Beck is a fascist. You lefties use the word a lot, I do not think it means what you think it means.

    Like

  35. Okay, is that one real?
    Wealth redistribution is the same as tax cuts?

    Taking money from one person to give to another is the same as letting the first guy keep more of his own money?

    Do you think that’ could be Rosetta or Moron Pundit messing with you?

    I’d suspect me, but I’m not doing it.

    Like

  36. >>Do you think that’ could be Rosetta or Moron Pundit messing with you?

    I’d be able to detect Rosetta’s cry for help.

    Like

  37. “Taking money from one person to give to another is the same as letting the first guy keep more of his own money? ”

    No, I said that tax cuts were the same as :

    “what governments do to “correct” the economy’s distribution.”

    Really, I just wanted to see if I could get geoff, who had accused me of “semantic stupidity” to back away from his definition, and he did.

    I’m not going to bother defining fascisim, because in the contest of Communist Obama and fascist beck, the point is that these are scary-sounding words that mean nothing.

    I’m not sure that I know what fascisim really means. I believe that Mussolini coined the term. It refers to a bundle of sticks, which is stronger than an individual stick, or something like that. Since I’m not a hundred per cent on the meaning, I don’t use the word unless I’m being ironic, or unless I’m referring to actual World War 2 fascists.

    I guess I’ll look it up right now.

    Like

  38. “No, Republicans do not call tax cuts wealth redistribution. Wealth is created by the private market and not government. Government only takes money.”

    That’s obviously not true. Maybe you have a beef with the coercive nature of taxation. Maybe you’d rather not have police, an army, prisons, and roads. Maybe you even think, contrary to a bunch of anecdotal evidence, that private contractors could do it better, but there is no denying that these are services that are provided therefore government does NOT only take.

    Like

  39. Really, I just wanted to see if I could get geoff, who had accused me of “semantic stupidity” to back away from his definition, and he did.

    Perhaps the meaning of “amelioration” was vague the way I used it. What I meant was that tax cuts reduce the effects of governmental intervention in wealth distribution (making the situation better from a conservative’s point of view).

    Let’s be entirely clear: you’ve said 2 incredibly stupid things. Things that I’ve never heard even another liberal say.

    1) The economy redistributes wealth
    2) Tax cuts = wealth redistribution

    These are nonsense, and you should disabuse yourself of these misconceptions as quickly as you can.

    Like

  40. there is no denying that these are services that are provided therefore government does NOT only take.

    You missed the point: the market generates money, the government cannot. Both provide services, but that’s irrelevant when discussing the source of their funds.

    Like

  41. I wasn’t concentrating on the POINT of what he said, but rather on the WORDS he said, and what the words mean.

    Like

  42. Maybe you’d rather not have police, an army, prisons, and roads.

    This is one of the most common, and least literate, liberal strawmen. “Don’t like taxes? You must not like the police or firemen, or roads, or the military!”

    Only complete pinheads use this argument, as it ignores very, very obvious flaws in reasoning:

    1) conservatives support federal spending on the military because it’s specified in the Constitution;
    2) conservatives support the Interstate Highway system because it was originally intended to improve military transport within the country;
    3) conservatives are generally opposed to federal spending on items that are not in the Constitution: this has nothing to do with state or local spending (such as on police or fire protection).
    4) conservatives almost always support local spending on sensible infrastructure and public safety.

    Honestly, I can’t imagine how libs can lump city spending on police with federal spending on social programs. It’s like they don’t understand government at all.

    Like

  43. Look Mr Jones,

    you just can’t go and criticize our host for this: “Also, it’s not exactly mortally and intellectually rigorous to say that “the left wing blogoshpere” started that stupid Glenn Beck story. There are millions of people in the left wing blogoshpere.” When you do the same thing saying this: “… everyone from the middle class down got poorer over the Bush Years, even though worker productivity went up. So the worker earned more, got less.” (I think you meant produced more and got less, but I could be wrong.)

    I’ve worked in manufacturing (hourly and salaried positions) since I got out of college. I’ve worked in non-union plants, open shop plants and closed shop plants. While the number of hourly employees varied as shifts were eliminated or added, depending upon the need for building materials. The union employees ALWAYS got their scheduled raises as stated in the contracts. Which is as it should be as the bargaining agreements are legal documents. Some also got bonuses based on performance and safety depending on the unions.

    So it is disingenuous of you to make statements like you did about wages inferring “everyone from the middle class down got poorer” when that isn’t true. Even when taking inflation into account. I’m sure some did not see increases, but it wasn’t because of President Bush.

    BTW, My salary has increased 50% over the last ten years. The reason, because I work my tail off and create value for my company. Not because I depended on scheduled raises. So perhaps the unions are holding back the ones who care and rewarding those who don’t. care

    Like

  44. I wasn’t concentrating on the POINT of what he said, but rather on the WORDS he said, and what the words mean.

    Hahahahaha!! I was wrong: you are kind of funny.

    Like

  45. >>That’s obviously not true. Maybe you have a beef with the coercive nature of taxation. Maybe you’d rather not have police, an army, prisons, and roads.

    Perhaps you should read more closely. I said:

    **Republicans and more to the point conservatives, accept taxes as a means of paying for the common good; roads, post office, national defense, etc..

    To repeat, government does not, can not, create wealth. Government only gets money from 1 of three places, it prints it, it borrows it or it taxes it. Period. There is no wealth created in any of these three cases. This is a basic tenet of free market economics. If the government takes money from me and gives it to someone else for a public works job, no wealth is created, it is merely a transfer. If it borrows it it creates a debt that has to be repaid. If it prints it it merely devalues the overall wealth of the system. .

    Wealth is only created by someone creating a new good or service which has intrinsic value and people are willing to pay for it. This is econ 101. Do you really not understand this?

    You’re just embarrassing yourself now. Well more than before anyway.

    Like

  46. Thanks; you’re not funny at all.

    Listen, I’m not going to change your mind, and I’m not the least bit interested in your argument., but maybe I can get you to move beyond these dreadful cliches and use real precise language. You guys might have something a little more insightful to say about the left than “Moral/Intellectual bankruptcy..” Did that expression EVER mean ANYTHING? Like, back in the 50s or something?

    Like

  47. **Republicans and more to the point conservatives, accept taxes as a means of paying for the common good; roads, post office, national defense, etc..

    So in other words, you immediately contradicted yourself. Yeah, I should have read more closely.

    Like

  48. There are cases where the government can invest the money where the private sector can’t or won’t, and an economic multiplier will results. But the government is not very good at choosing where to invest its money to obtain those results. And the stimulus package, which should be chock-full of that sort of investment, has very little.

    Obama is spending the bulk of the stimulus money on Medicare/caid, unemployment insurance, police and teachers, and blue collar job protection. None of that will have a multiplier effect.

    Like

  49. >>So in other words, you immediately contradicted yourself. Yeah, I should have read more closely.

    Please point out where.

    And while you’re at it, please give me your definition of fascist.

    I need a laugh.

    Like

  50. I guess blackbelt is right: he doesn’t really care what anybody is saying – he just keys off of certain words and phrases.

    So much for discussion.

    Take care, blackbelt. So far you made one decent point and embarrassed yourself on . . . well I lost count at 6. You’re way ahead of most liberal visitors.

    Like

  51. >>There are cases where the government can invest the money where the private sector can’t or won’t, and an economic multiplier will results.

    But it can’t do that without first, borrowing, printing or taxing to get the money first.

    Like

  52. But it can’t do that without first, borrowing, printing or taxing to get the money first.

    Quite true. But in the rare circumstance when it hits a homer (e.g., the Internet), the economic benefits outweigh the cost.

    Like

  53. You contradicted yourself when you said that one thing, and then you said the opposite thing.

    –noun
    1. a person who believes in or sympathizes with fascism.
    2. (often initial capital letter) a member of a fascist movement or party.
    3. a person who is dictatorial or has extreme right-wing views.

    You know, I’m using a live Linux CD, and that means if I reboot, I will lose this address and almost certainly never find my way here again. I’m likin the sound of that.

    Beam me up, Linus!

    Like

  54. >>You contradicted yourself when you said that one thing, and then you said the opposite thing.

    Yes, I know what the word contradiction means. I asked you to point out where I, as you claimed I did, contradicted myself. You lose.

    >>–noun
    1. a person who believes in or sympathizes with fascism.

    Which is of course meaningless without an accepted definition of fascism.

    >>2. (often initial capital letter) a member of a fascist movement or party.

    See above.

    >>3. a person who is dictatorial or has extreme right-wing views.

    Ah, I see, you are using the Democratic Underground definition of fascism. Perhaps you would like to consult an actual dictionary and try again.

    >>Quite true. But in the rare circumstance when it hits a homer (e.g., the Internet), the economic benefits outweigh the cost.

    Yep. But the actual investment in the internet was in ARPANET which was designed to be a secure method of communication between universities conducting military research in the chance that a hostile military attack took out normal communication. It was funded by the DOD. BBN was one of my customers back in the day and when it went commercial, AOL, UUNet and AT&T. Not much government money then but lots and lots of private money.

    But I agree, government money was needed for ARPANET. The WWW on the other hand, is all commercial dollars.

    Like

  55. You know, I’m using a live Linux CD, and that means if I reboot, I will lose this address and almost certainly never find my way here again. I’m likin the sound of that.

    Hahahahaha!! If you want to leave, just leave. And if you don’t want to come back, don’t. You don’t have to have some excuse.

    But if you ever decide that what people mean matters in a discussion, come on back. Because by then you’ll be at least half-conservative.

    Like

  56. Hey Deb;
    Isn’t it ridiculous that you can see guys like Van Jones, Barack and Michelle Obama, on video saying the most outrageous stuff and then they come back and say you’re lying about them. And those on the left just continue to defend these guys.
    Oh, good job rebuffiing Black_belt Jones. In the battle of wit, he was unarmed.

    Like

  57. You guys might have something a little more insightful to say about the left than “Moral/Intellectual bankruptcy..” Did that expression EVER mean ANYTHING? Like, back in the 50s or something?

    I’d consider the message to be effectively communicated.
    The moral bankruptcy is evidenced by the supplanting of God with man that is central to the leftist dogma. Once it is accepted that man, and only man is the source of virtue and law, then there is a primary disconnect from the very concepts on which the country is founded and then there is a fundamental disability to understand that the government serves us and not the other way around.

    The intellectual bankruptcy is really an expression of the intellectual inanition that drives the left to continue to propose ideas that have already been tried and have failed, time and again.

    Like

  58. Were no strangers to love
    You know the rules and so do i
    A full commitments what Im thinking of
    You wouldnt get this from any other guy

    I just wanna tell you how Im feeling
    Gotta make you understand

    * never gonna give you up
    Never gonna let you down
    Never gonna run around and desert you
    Never gonna make you cry
    Never gonna say goodbye
    Never gonna tell a lie and hurt you

    Weve know each other for so long
    Your hearts been aching
    But youre too shy to say it
    Inside we both know whats been going on
    We know the game and were gonna play it

    And if you ask me how Im feeling
    Dont tell me youre too blind to see

    (* repeat)

    Give you up. give you up
    Give you up, give you up
    Never gonna give
    Never gonna give, give you up
    Never gonna give
    Never gonna give, five you up

    I just wanna tell you how Im feeling
    Gotta make you understand

    (* repeat 3 times)

    Like

  59. Hey Blackbelt J – you rock! Hey Jackstraw – GM and Chrysler bankrupted by Obama. Right wing revisionism at its best! Bloody woeful!

    Like

  60. GM and Chrysler bankrupted by Obama. Right wing revisionism at its best!

    You didn’t know that the administration forced GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy proceedings as part of the bailout? This is from the NYTimes (5/1/09):

    President Obama forced Chrysler into federal bankruptcy protection on Thursday so it could pursue a lifesaving alliance with the Italian automaker Fiat, in yet another extraordinary intervention into private industry by the federal government.

    and from WaPo (5/22/09):

    The Obama administration is preparing to send General Motors into bankruptcy as early as the end of next week under a plan that would give the automaker tens of billions of dollars more in public financing as the company seeks to shrink and reemerge as a global competitor,

    The Obama administration certainly didn’t force GM and Chrysler into the circumstances that led to bankruptcy, but they certainly pushed them into bankruptcy once those circumstances were realized.

    Like

  61. >>Hey Blackbelt J – you rock! Hey Jackstraw – GM and Chrysler bankrupted by Obama. Right wing revisionism at its best! Bloody woeful!

    Mal, you can’t really be as stupid as you demonstrate here, can you? Tell me it’s an act.

    Like

  62. Why are there CZARS in America? This is not a communist country! We have rights! I don’t understand why the govenment is Paying people a lot of money for this title! It is ridiculous, who is behind all of this? Can the people of America, learn more about these people, if so, HOW?

    Like

  63. Pingback: Nice 9-11 Truther Shirt There, Van Jones… (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone

  64. Pingback: Don’t Blame Van Jones! Blame the Conservatives… And Be Sure to Include That They’re, er, uh, ALL Racists « Frugal Café Blog Zone

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s