Cpac

[Seawytch]

lol, FORMER Communist..youbetcha.

I realize you don't let anything pesky like a fact get in the way, but other people that read the board, do...

Van Jones "is an avowed, self-avowed radical revolutionary communist."~ Glen Beck

Politifact rated:

Beck would have been on solid ground if he said Jones used to be a communist. Jones has been up front about that.​

 

[Stephanie]

lol, FORMER Communist..youbetcha.

I realize you don't let anything pesky like a fact get in the way, but other people that read the board, do...

Van Jones "is an avowed, self-avowed radical revolutionary communist."~ Glen Beck

Politifact rated:

Beck would have been on solid ground if he said Jones used to be a communist. Jones has been up front about that.​

LOL, so politifact says it that MAKES it all better. You all can swallow it but if you look at what he says, he is still a commie..once a commie always a commie. He just tries to hide better now, but he can't

 

[Seawytch]

lol, FORMER Communist..youbetcha.

I realize you don't let anything pesky like a fact get in the way, but other people that read the board, do...

Van Jones "is an avowed, self-avowed radical revolutionary communist."~ Glen Beck

Politifact rated:

Beck would have been on solid ground if he said Jones used to be a communist. Jones has been up front about that.​

LOL, so politifact says it that MAKES it all better. You all can swallow it but if you look at what he says, he is still a commie..once a commie always a commie. He just tries to hide better now, but he can't

Of course you would say that. It's a side effect of the ODS you suffer from. It's an ODS form of Tourette's.

 

[Oddball]

Van Jones - Conservapedia

Not that all the pertinent links have been scrubbed.

Nothing to see here.

 

[Seawytch]

Van Jones - Conservapedia

Not that all the pertinent links have been scrubbed.

Nothing to see here.

Conservapedia? OMG...you guys aren't even trying anymore.

 

[Oddball]

I was talking about the links in the endnotes, not Conservapedia's slant.

The scrubbed links are from mainstream sources, like AP.

Were the same to happen in the case of someone like Dick Cheney or the Kochs, loons like you would be screeching about the right censoring and hiding things, and we all know it.

 

[code1211]

Addendum:

Before I address any pertinent comments, a few more observations. Stanley Fish has written how the right has co-opted the language of the left, watching CPAC, the observation is soon obvious. As you watch you hear cries for things like liberty and a better America, who could disagree? Sixties rhetoric returns clothed in conservative attire.

Watching the Tea party panel was fascinating, at times it reminded me of an AA meeting. Coming from a long line of alcoholics I was ready to take the pledge. Go out there and stay the course, work hard to get Representative Whatshername elected, she's not a RINO. What is a RINO anyway? At other times it was like a mutual admiration society. Say the right cliche and the cheers go up, smiles all around like a schoolyard clique.

I sometimes tape it as it forms an interesting place to view and observe a group that seems so alien from the America I live in and yet presumes to be about America. One area that is still offensive is the personal attacks on individuals who are not on their side of reality.

Ultimately what does it mean when the best thing you can do is say no? When the best you can do is look back to a world that was far from perfect and idealize it as if it were heaven. Nations die from within and without a sense of community and compromise, America will stand still and the world will move forward. Boo CPAC, you bore.

So your prescription for a healthy country is to continue to hang paper?

 

[Stephanie]

Van Jones - Conservapedia

Not that all the pertinent links have been scrubbed.

Nothing to see here.

Conservapedia? OMG...you guys aren't even trying anymore.

Politifact? OMG

 

[midcan5]

Van Jones - Conservapedia

Not that all the pertinent links have been scrubbed.

Nothing to see here.

Conservapedia? OMG...you guys aren't even trying anymore.

I'm trying to figure out what Van Jones has to do with CPAC, is this just the usual distraction? Of course, no righty ever addresses the issue they merely deflect, they have been trained well it seems.

I tried like hell to watch all of Sarah Palin's rant, but I confess I couldn't do it. If the secret service wants a new torture method, they should use her speech as the torture. What person could take all the smirks and smiles and inane connections and hyperbolic nonsense? Soon the person would be screaming, 'no mas' 'no mas.'

 

[editec]

Reagan did NOT say that government was the problem.

Reagans said THIS government (referring to Carter's administration) was the problem.

You folks claiming the conservative mantel need to read your own history.

 

[Seawytch]

Van Jones - Conservapedia

Not that all the pertinent links have been scrubbed.

Nothing to see here.

Conservapedia? OMG...you guys aren't even trying anymore.

Politifact? OMG

I know right? Actually journalism. Pah! Look at them with their Pulitzer Prize and everything. Sheesh.

 

[Stephanie]

Conservapedia? OMG...you guys aren't even trying anymore.

Politifact? OMG

I know right? Actually journalism. Pah! Look at them with their Pulitzer Prize and everything. Sheesh.

well then, that must mean they are the absolute truth tellers..sorta like MediaMatters.

but because a site has "conservative" in it they are not to be believed.

 

[JoeB131]

I think the problem is that we miss what the cause of debt is.

The cause of debt is trade imbalance.

the last time we had a real, honest to God surplus, not the smoke and mirrors surplus of Clinton/Gingrich using Social Security to cover General Funds Debt, was in 1969.

Was it because we were keeping spending under control? NOPE! We were fighting an expensive war in Vietnam, were were initiating huge new social programs, and we were sending rockets to the moon. But we were keeping our debt pretty much in line. True, the top marginal rate was 70% after JFK cut it in the early 1960's, but the top effective rate was closer to 43%.

What kept us fat and happy was in the years after WWII, we had an untouched economy while the industrial infrastructures of the rest of the world were in ruins and the great colonial empires were collapsing. So not suprisingly, we were running trade surpluses all the way up until 1976.

In 1976, the National Debt from 200 years of history, two world wars, space program, interstate highway system, welfare society was all of 600 billion. (Half of what Barry is running up in any given year.) But by 1980, it had hit a trillion. The money flow was reversing.

By 1988, it was at 3 trillion when Reagan left. Then the Savings and Loan debacle hit. It sprung up to 5trillion.

Yeah, Clinton gave us the aformentioned Smoke and Mirrors, but it was still up to 6 trillion by the time he left. Another war, two more recessions, and some tax cuts, Bush-43 got it up to 10 Trillion. Then along comes Barry and we are up to 16 trillion.

(And seriously, the Republicans need to be talking about this, not freaking Birth Control Pills. WTF is the matter with you people?)

Trade is the real problem, and our loss of manufacturing and the good paying jobs that go with them. We are bleeding 500 billion a year, every year, for the last two decades.

 

[Seawytch]

Politifact? OMG

I know right? Actually journalism. Pah! Look at them with their Pulitzer Prize and everything. Sheesh.

well then, that must mean they are the absolute truth tellers..sorta like MediaMatters.

but because a site has "conservative" in it they are not to be believed.

Comparing sites like Politifact and Media Matters, who source their material, to "Conservapedia" which is like a stupid mans Wikipedia is ludicrous. Wear your mantle well, Steph.

 

[Stephanie]

I know right? Actually journalism. Pah! Look at them with their Pulitzer Prize and everything. Sheesh.

well then, that must mean they are the absolute truth tellers..sorta like MediaMatters.

but because a site has "conservative" in it they are not to be believed.

Comparing sites like Politifact and Media Matters, who source their material, to "Conservapedia" which is like a stupid mans Wikipedia is ludicrous. Wear your mantle well, Steph.

well at least you admit Wiki is ludicrous.
sorta like you are a nasty petty person.

 

[bripat9643]

Comparing sites like Politifact and Media Matters, who source their material, to "Conservapedia" which is like a stupid mans Wikipedia is ludicrous. Wear your mantle well, Steph.

Wikipedia is the stupid man's Wikipedia.

 

[Oddball]

I know right? Actually journalism. Pah! Look at them with their Pulitzer Prize and everything. Sheesh.

well then, that must mean they are the absolute truth tellers..sorta like MediaMatters.

but because a site has "conservative" in it they are not to be believed.

Comparing sites like Politifact and Media Matters, who source their material, to "Conservapedia" which is like a stupid mans Wikipedia is ludicrous. Wear your mantle well, Steph.

As I already pointed out, and you conveniently ignored, the scrubbed endnotes on the Conservapdia page I mentioned were to mainstream sources, like Associated Press.

But feel free to deny, distract and demagogue...It's really what liberoidals do best.

 

[blastoff]

Whomever blabbed our plan to kill all of us, our loved ones, and everyone else by breathing dirty air and drinking dirty water really blew it, big time.