Van jones!!! Van jones!!! Van jones!!!

[skookerasbil]

How much do I love the threads when the k00ks put it right on a tee for ya........................

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[paperview]

I really need to know: Are you like...14?

 

[namvet]

[youtube]xKoXGwNPonU[/youtube]


[youtube]IAQDIQmSqF8[/youtube]



the instrument has yet to be invented to measure my indifference to this shit

 

[RadiomanATL]

I really need to know: Are you like...14?

You're giving him THAT much credit??

 

[paperview]

I really need to know: Are you like...14?

You're giving him THAT much credit??

Actually, I originally posted 12, but then I figured his grasp of the workings of MS Paint, the ability to upload all on his own,
and that he could get to bed later... inched it up a couple of years.

 

[MaggieMae]

People would be generally us peons out here in the masses that vote. You can read all the ta do out there with this search link.

Obamas new czars communist - Google Search

I know the word harkens back to Communist Russia. But it is, after all, just a word. Unfortunately, it's been taken to the limits like everything else the fringe conservatives do.

 

[MaggieMae]

Czar: any person exercising great authority or power in a particular field

Czar Definition | Definition of Czar at Dictionary.com


I have a big problem with czars being appointed (by any president), not confirmed and not vetted. Everyone should. Obama is up to what, 30 or so? Just how much power and influence do they have? They answer to no one but the president. Where are the checks and balances? Many of the czars that Obama has appointed are just as radical as Jones. Too much power and control in the hands of too few people is a bad thing.

So what do you think they're doing? Operating a shadow government? They are ADVISORS, for God's sake, nothing more nothing less.

The checks and balances have been employed more by this administration than the last one, that's for sure. All the grief over the health care reform packages which in their most accusatory form label Obama a dictator is ludicrous. He followed what The Constitution mandates: THAT CONGRESS SHALL WRITE BILLS.

 

[MaggieMae]

How much do I love the threads when the k00ks put it right on a tee for ya........................

Going on ignore you stupid child.

 

[MaggieMae]

[youtube]xKoXGwNPonU[/youtube]


[youtube]IAQDIQmSqF8[/youtube]



the instrument has yet to be invented to measure my indifference to this shit

You too. Buh bye. People who can't express themselves any way other than with filthy language or idiotic cartoons aren't worthy of even a read.

 

[Titanic Sailor]

It's weird watching liberals evolve from an anti-government entity of the 60s to the government control of everything 2000s. No wonder they voted with Bush on every single issue for eight years except for Terry Schiavo and SCHIPs.

 

[MaggieMae]

It's weird watching liberals evolve from an anti-government entity of the 60s to the government control of everything 2000s. No wonder they voted with Bush on every single issue for eight years except for Terry Schiavo and SCHIPs.

They didn't. Republicans held a comfortable majority in both Houses from 2001 through 2006, with any attempt to circumvent their agenda by Democrats threatened to be vetoed by the president.

 

[namvet]

 

[DiveCon]

It's weird watching liberals evolve from an anti-government entity of the 60s to the government control of everything 2000s. No wonder they voted with Bush on every single issue for eight years except for Terry Schiavo and SCHIPs.

They didn't. Republicans held a comfortable majority in both Houses from 2001 through 2006, with any attempt to circumvent their agenda by Democrats threatened to be vetoed by the president.

WRONG

the dems had a majority in the senate from 2001 to 2003

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Today's Democratic Party is no longer the Party of Liberals. It has now become the Party of Socialists. There is a difference. People often make the mistake of thinking the two are the same thing.

 

[garyd]

And the comfortable lead in the Senate was between one and five votes. Never enough for cluture.

 

[MaggieMae]

It's weird watching liberals evolve from an anti-government entity of the 60s to the government control of everything 2000s. No wonder they voted with Bush on every single issue for eight years except for Terry Schiavo and SCHIPs.

They didn't. Republicans held a comfortable majority in both Houses from 2001 through 2006, with any attempt to circumvent their agenda by Democrats threatened to be vetoed by the president.

WRONG

the dems had a majority in the senate from 2001 to 2003

They never had the 60-vote requirement.

From January 3 to January 20, 2001, with the Senate divided evenly between the two parties, the Democrats held the majority due to the deciding vote of outgoing Democratic Vice President Al Gore. Senator Thomas A. Daschle served as majority leader at that time. Beginning on January 20, 2001, Republican Vice President Richard Cheney held the deciding vote, giving the majority to the Republicans. Senator Trent Lott resumed his position as majority leader on that date. On May 24, 2001, Senator James Jeffords of Vermont announced his switch from Republican to Independent status, effective June 6, 2001. He announced that he would caucus with the Democrats, giving that party a one-seat advantage and changing control of the Senate back to the Democrats. Thomas A. Daschle again became majority leader on June 6, 2001. Trent Lott announced on December 20, 2002, that he would not continue as Republican leader in the 108th Congress. William Frist was elected Republican leader on Dec. 23, 2002, and began service on January 7, 2003. U.S. Senate: Art & History Home > People > Party Leadership > Majority and Minority Leaders and Party Whips

 

[DiveCon]

They didn't. Republicans held a comfortable majority in both Houses from 2001 through 2006, with any attempt to circumvent their agenda by Democrats threatened to be vetoed by the president.

WRONG

the dems had a majority in the senate from 2001 to 2003

They never had the 60-vote requirement.

From January 3 to January 20, 2001, with the Senate divided evenly between the two parties, the Democrats held the majority due to the deciding vote of outgoing Democratic Vice President Al Gore. Senator Thomas A. Daschle served as majority leader at that time. Beginning on January 20, 2001, Republican Vice President Richard Cheney held the deciding vote, giving the majority to the Republicans. Senator Trent Lott resumed his position as majority leader on that date. On May 24, 2001, Senator James Jeffords of Vermont announced his switch from Republican to Independent status, effective June 6, 2001. He announced that he would caucus with the Democrats, giving that party a one-seat advantage and changing control of the Senate back to the Democrats. Thomas A. Daschle again became majority leader on June 6, 2001. Trent Lott announced on December 20, 2002, that he would not continue as Republican leader in the 108th Congress. William Frist was elected Republican leader on Dec. 23, 2002, and began service on January 7, 2003. U.S. Senate: Art & History Home > People > Party Leadership > Majority and Minority Leaders and Party Whips

ok, neither did the GOP, EVER
thanks for admitting the GOP didn't really control the senate like the dems have now

 

[PatekPhilippe]

This story has replaced Obama's talk to students as the attack of the day. Whatever will you fucking fools bitch about for the next 1,323 that is barely a blip on the screen?

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH !!

Complete Bush Appointee Resignation Scorecard | the DC Shuffle

Shut your whiny pie hole. The guy ( Van Jones) thought his own government crashed planes into the WTC. Only a fricken dipshit believes in theories like this.....uneducated dipshits with an axe to grind because their own pathetic failings are to be blamed on everyone else except themselves.

 

[oreo]

Today's Democratic Party is no longer the Party of Liberals. It has now become the Party of Socialists. There is a difference. People often make the mistake of thinking the two are the same thing.

The democrat party has dramatically changed over the decades. Under JFK--they were the hawks--. In fact, JFK gave the largest tax cut in history prior to Ronald Reagan. He understood how the economy works. They have gone from that to this administration & congress which believes in massive government expansion at no matter what cost. All for entitlement programs which will definitely lead to socialism. The irony--they don't pay attention to facts--like the fact that socialism has never worked in any country to "uplift" the citizens. In fact, it's just the opposite.

BTW--Have you noticed there aren't to many liberals defending Van Jones. Van Jones a self-proclaimed communist--who is on record for stating that ALL wealth should be re-distributed--& actually praised Hugo Chavez for taking over the media in his country to accomplish his goals.