Anita Dunn...
- Thread starter Sinatra
- Start date
It's on the drudgereport.com.
Charles Stucker
Senior Member
- Oct 13, 2009
- 2,071
- 226
- 48
I agree, can't get much shadier than a man who used pull to cover up vehicular manslaughter, of Mary Jo Kopechne, as a character reference. Yet a Teddy Kennedy endorsement was a necessity for all the Democratic presidential candidates since at least 1984 until the cowards unlamented death.
Really can anyone imagine JFK running away from a car crash when someone might be in danger, just to avoid a little difficulty? I can't.
mdn2000
VIP Member
- Banned
- #285
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2406
Van Jones is an avowed Marxist, not in his past, but now. In Van Jones own words, 1992 plus ten years takes Van Jones into 2002, this is not in his youth nor many years ago.
According to Coyote
How does Coyote know? Go to Bill Ayers Blogspot and what do you see, a picture of a Marxist that wrote books on how to start and organize an armed guerrilla-revolution-marxist movement.
How about I quote Bill Ayers in Venuzula 2006
There is a whole lot more, speeches, recent speeches like this, go to the link and you can see the video:
William Ayers' forgotten communist manifesto: Prairie Fire
According to Coyote
In another thread I called Coyote a moron, I have to take that back, its obvious Coyote is very smart and does much research, So Coyote must be very familiar with Bill Ayers, after all Coyote is not a moron, so why does Coyote state "people change" speaking of Bill Ayers? Bill Ayers has not changed, not one bit. No radical groups in 30 years may be correct, after all Hugo Chavez is not a radical group but a radical leader siezing control of Venuzula while violating human rights. So in a way Coyote is right, you cannot call Chavez and Marxism a group so Bill Ayers is not involved in a radical group.
Bill Ayers is an avowed Marxist, listen to Bill Ayers own words and hear it for yourself.
So who is Coyote, is Coyotes statement a simple mistake, a belief, or a real attempt to hide the truth.
I see Coyote as maybe posting lies to hide a avowed Marxist, I will let Coyote explain.
Coyote is describing Ayers as an aquaintence, a casual contact, yet here is a photo of Obama's reveiw of Ayer's book.
There is much more, connecting Obama and Ayers, the Annenburg project, I can post stuff about that, Obama's meeting in Ayer's home, living in the same neighborhood, professors at the same university, and there is even more. Its my bedtime so this is it for now, but dont doubt that there is much more, this is just the tip of the iceburg.
Van Jones is an avowed Marxist, not in his past, but now. In Van Jones own words, 1992 plus ten years takes Van Jones into 2002, this is not in his youth nor many years ago.
According to Coyote
How does Coyote know? Go to Bill Ayers Blogspot and what do you see, a picture of a Marxist that wrote books on how to start and organize an armed guerrilla-revolution-marxist movement.
How about I quote Bill Ayers in Venuzula 2006
There is a whole lot more, speeches, recent speeches like this, go to the link and you can see the video:
William Ayers' forgotten communist manifesto: Prairie Fire
According to Coyote
In another thread I called Coyote a moron, I have to take that back, its obvious Coyote is very smart and does much research, So Coyote must be very familiar with Bill Ayers, after all Coyote is not a moron, so why does Coyote state "people change" speaking of Bill Ayers? Bill Ayers has not changed, not one bit. No radical groups in 30 years may be correct, after all Hugo Chavez is not a radical group but a radical leader siezing control of Venuzula while violating human rights. So in a way Coyote is right, you cannot call Chavez and Marxism a group so Bill Ayers is not involved in a radical group.
Bill Ayers is an avowed Marxist, listen to Bill Ayers own words and hear it for yourself.
So who is Coyote, is Coyotes statement a simple mistake, a belief, or a real attempt to hide the truth.
I see Coyote as maybe posting lies to hide a avowed Marxist, I will let Coyote explain.
Coyote is describing Ayers as an aquaintence, a casual contact, yet here is a photo of Obama's reveiw of Ayer's book.
There is much more, connecting Obama and Ayers, the Annenburg project, I can post stuff about that, Obama's meeting in Ayer's home, living in the same neighborhood, professors at the same university, and there is even more. Its my bedtime so this is it for now, but dont doubt that there is much more, this is just the tip of the iceburg.
Last edited:
LibocalypseNow
Senior Member
- Jul 30, 2009
- 12,337
- 1,370
- 48
Hey they do control most of the Media and the few they don't control they simply try to shut down. Another page right out of Mao's playbook. It is very sad but it is what it is in the end.
PatekPhilippe
Senior Member
Ame®icano;1644239 said:
Hmmmmmmmm. Cronyism appears to be rampant in The Barry's WH
First off, what’s with the retarded 3rd person talk here? You can’t talk directly to me or something? Afraid of fleas?
Interesting site you use, not exactly balanced is it? It is as interesting as much for what it leaves out as for what it includes.
There is no dispute that Jones was an avowed communist. But is he still?
When was this manifesto written?
Explain how those equal being involved with radical groups? Is he a member or something? Is he setting bombs etc or is it just his leftist ideas you don’t like?
I don’t think I ever said Ayers wasn’t a Marxist. I'm also trying to figure out why it matters.
Coyote is a Flea-Bitten Perverted God Hating Frenchie Know-it-All Liberal Varmint. Now…what's your excuse?
If you are going to claim I said something, you need to be a little more accurate and not just pick stuff out.
What I said was this:
While Ayers is something more than a casual aquaintence he is also something less than a close friend.
Interesting site you use, not exactly balanced is it? It is as interesting as much for what it leaves out as for what it includes.
There is no dispute that Jones was an avowed communist. But is he still?
When was this manifesto written?
Explain how those equal being involved with radical groups? Is he a member or something? Is he setting bombs etc or is it just his leftist ideas you don’t like?
I don’t think I ever said Ayers wasn’t a Marxist. I'm also trying to figure out why it matters.
Coyote is a Flea-Bitten Perverted God Hating Frenchie Know-it-All Liberal Varmint. Now…what's your excuse?
If you are going to claim I said something, you need to be a little more accurate and not just pick stuff out.
What I said was this:
In response to this
While Ayers is something more than a casual aquaintence he is also something less than a close friend.
Last edited:
Coyote is too busy scavenging political carrion to keep an eye out for your posts.
mdn2000
VIP Member
- Banned
- #293
Yes, Jones is still a Marxist.
Nope, its not balanced, in politics the middle way is no way at all (John Adams said this first). Balanced or rule from the center is how the Marxist/Liberal tricks the opposition into comprimising and thus the Liberal/Marxist advances their idealogy incrementally.
There is no reason to be balanced nor to move to the center when one is confronted with a Liberal/Marxist. One does not make a deal with tyrants, it comprimises liberty.
It does not matter when Ayers wrote his manifesto, his veiws have not changed as Ayers states in the interview in 2006
First Ayers ideas are Marxist and yes I dont like Marxist ideas. Ayers never got caught setting off bombs, I beleive his wife did not get caught either, Ayers wife just accidentally blew herself up so was Ayers involved in a radical group, in Ayers words he states he was involved.
Ayers is a professor at a college, does being a Marxist and teaching Marxist politics as a better system of goverment than Democracy matter, yes, it matters.
Ayers and Obama are freinds who share the beleif in Marxism. Does it matter, very much so.
Something less than a close freind is a freind, close enough for me. Consider all the Marxist Obama has appointed indicates Obama has many, many, connections directly to Marxist.
Oldandtired
Rookie
- Banned
- #294
So based on this logic I keep seeing...
"He was but is no more"....regarding Ayers and Van Jones.....
and the logic the dems keep using like....
"yes he had a small bump with his taxes (Geitner), but he is the best man for the job".....
Well then....
Madoff, in my eyes, knows as much as, if not more than anyone else in regard to SEC Compliance. And since he only broke the law once, and I am sure he will say he is rehabilitated when asked.....should he be the new SEC Complaince Czar?
"He was but is no more"....regarding Ayers and Van Jones.....
and the logic the dems keep using like....
"yes he had a small bump with his taxes (Geitner), but he is the best man for the job".....
Well then....
Madoff, in my eyes, knows as much as, if not more than anyone else in regard to SEC Compliance. And since he only broke the law once, and I am sure he will say he is rehabilitated when asked.....should he be the new SEC Complaince Czar?
We are talking about Communist, not Marxist.
Balance in the poltiical spectrum does not necessarily mean Marxism. Balance is pragmatism over idealogues.
That is such a gross generalization it really isn't answerable.
It does matter - what was written in the manifesto is far broader than what he expressed in his interview. To say his views haven't changed - at all - would be inaccurate.
You are deliberately blurring tenses here to try to make a false point.
What I said was: Explain how those equal being involved with radical groups? Is he a member or something? Is he setting bombs etc or is it just his leftist ideas you don’t like?
Ayers claimed he never set bombs, and he left the radical group when they became more violent. You can say "he never got caught" - but that is speculation not based on hard evidence or a conviction in a court of law. He has said repeatedly that he did not intend innocent people to be hurt. That doesnt' excuse what his group did - but we are talking how many years ago?
You may not like the ideas, but having Marxist ideas is no more "radical" than the ideals promoted by such rightwing think tanks as PNAC and does not equal belonging to radical groups.
Is that what he is teaching? Or, is he comparing Marxism and capitalism?
Can you support that claim with any hard data? Preferably more current then decades ago?
Well, if gross generalizations and factual inaccuracies are "close enough" for you...that is your choice, but don't whine if folks choose to ignore your posts
Last edited:
So...am I correct in assuming that you feel only some people change? Like, for example - President Bush was a former drunk and drug user, but it's ok - he "changed" Only conservatives can be granted the ability to change? Is that what you think?
Ayers isn't an administration official or advisor in any way so his current political ideals are largely irrelevant but he has, in interviews expressed regret that innocent lives may have inadvertently been put at risk.
Van Jones - if you read his book or interviews has clearly moved to capitalism as a means of social change. You may not agree with his idea of social change but that is nothing more than ideological differences. It doesn't make him even remotely comparable to Madoff.
Madoff is a convicted criminal who defrauded thousands of innocent people of their life savings. Van Jones is not nor ever was a convicted criminal nor is Geitner. Madoff may be rehabilitated but he has yet to serve his time or compensate his victims or show any indication of a desire to do so. It's an interesting comparison you make, but it is more along the lines of a logical fallacy.
Oldandtired
Rookie
- Banned
- #297
So...am I correct in assuming that you feel only some people change? Like, for example - President Bush was a former drunk and drug user, but it's ok - he "changed" Only conservatives can be granted the ability to change? Is that what you think?
Ayers isn't an administration official or advisor in any way so his current political ideals are largely irrelevant but he has, in interviews expressed regret that innocent lives may have inadvertently been put at risk.
Van Jones - if you read his book or interviews has clearly moved to capitalism as a means of social change. You may not agree with his idea of social change but that is nothing more than ideological differences. It doesn't make him even remotely comparable to Madoff.
Madoff is a convicted criminal who defrauded thousands of innocent people of their life savings. Van Jones is not nor ever was a convicted criminal nor is Geitner. Madoff may be rehabilitated but he has yet to serve his time or compensate his victims or show any indication of a desire to do so. It's an interesting comparison you make, but it is more along the lines of a logical fallacy.
Nope..not at all what I said and not at all what can be inferred with what I said.
But for someone to say he has changed without ANY indication of such is not enough for that person to enter the WH.
You make a bad decision, you dam well better prove that you regret it before youy enter the WH.
You see....here in America....our highest officials are held to a higher standard...and it was always the press that hepld them there for us.
But whatever...I am kind of losing patience with you twisting my words.
It seems to be a bad habit of yours during good debates.
So...am I correct in assuming that you feel only some people change? Like, for example - President Bush was a former drunk and drug user, but it's ok - he "changed" Only conservatives can be granted the ability to change? Is that what you think?
Ayers isn't an administration official or advisor in any way so his current political ideals are largely irrelevant but he has, in interviews expressed regret that innocent lives may have inadvertently been put at risk.
Van Jones - if you read his book or interviews has clearly moved to capitalism as a means of social change. You may not agree with his idea of social change but that is nothing more than ideological differences. It doesn't make him even remotely comparable to Madoff.
Madoff is a convicted criminal who defrauded thousands of innocent people of their life savings. Van Jones is not nor ever was a convicted criminal nor is Geitner. Madoff may be rehabilitated but he has yet to serve his time or compensate his victims or show any indication of a desire to do so. It's an interesting comparison you make, but it is more along the lines of a logical fallacy.
Nope..not at all what I said and not at all what can be inferred with what I said.
But for someone to say he has changed without ANY indication of such is not enough for that person to enter the WH.
You make a bad decision, you dam well better prove that you regret it before youy enter the WH.
You see....here in America....our highest officials are held to a higher standard...and it was always the press that hepld them there for us.
But whatever...I am kind of losing patience with you twisting my words.
It seems to be a bad habit of yours during good debates.
You seem to have a bad habit of generalizing...should that put an end to debates?
You say: But for someone to say he has changed without ANY indication of such is not enough for that person to enter the WH.
Ok, I can pretty much agree with that when it comes to criminal activity or really radical beliefs - but defining radical is pretty subjective. Some folks seem to think that anything left of center is "radical". I don't agree with that. I'm not saying you necessarily think that but it is clear from debates that there are those that do.
So looking at who has entered the White House we have Geitner, whom you mentioned. He had some tax problems that may or may not have been inadvertent there is no way to truely know. He paid it.
Ayers isn't part of the White House so he is a moot point.
Van Jones has done nothing wrong - rightwingers just don't like his ideology. Same with Anita Dunn. What "higher standard" should he have been held to? They try to smear him as a radical communist yet his own writings indicate a more current belief that capitalism is the best means for social change. I was not happy with many past administration appointees - but much of that was ideological and ideological reasons are not sound reasons to reject an appointment.
Oldandtired
Rookie
- Banned
- #300
So...am I correct in assuming that you feel only some people change? Like, for example - President Bush was a former drunk and drug user, but it's ok - he "changed" Only conservatives can be granted the ability to change? Is that what you think?
Ayers isn't an administration official or advisor in any way so his current political ideals are largely irrelevant but he has, in interviews expressed regret that innocent lives may have inadvertently been put at risk.
Van Jones - if you read his book or interviews has clearly moved to capitalism as a means of social change. You may not agree with his idea of social change but that is nothing more than ideological differences. It doesn't make him even remotely comparable to Madoff.
Madoff is a convicted criminal who defrauded thousands of innocent people of their life savings. Van Jones is not nor ever was a convicted criminal nor is Geitner. Madoff may be rehabilitated but he has yet to serve his time or compensate his victims or show any indication of a desire to do so. It's an interesting comparison you make, but it is more along the lines of a logical fallacy.
Nope..not at all what I said and not at all what can be inferred with what I said.
But for someone to say he has changed without ANY indication of such is not enough for that person to enter the WH.
You make a bad decision, you dam well better prove that you regret it before youy enter the WH.
You see....here in America....our highest officials are held to a higher standard...and it was always the press that hepld them there for us.
But whatever...I am kind of losing patience with you twisting my words.
It seems to be a bad habit of yours during good debates.
You seem to have a bad habit of generalizing...should that put an end to debates?
You say: But for someone to say he has changed without ANY indication of such is not enough for that person to enter the WH.
Ok, I can pretty much agree with that when it comes to criminal activity or really radical beliefs - but defining radical is pretty subjective. Some folks seem to think that anything left of center is "radical". I don't agree with that. I'm not saying you necessarily think that but it is clear from debates that there are those that do.
So looking at who has entered the White House we have Geitner, whom you mentioned. He had some tax problems that may or may not have been inadvertent there is no way to truely know. He paid it.
Ayers isn't part of the White House so he is a moot point.
Van Jones has done nothing wrong - rightwingers just don't like his ideology. Same with Anita Dunn. What "higher standard" should he have been held to? They try to smear him as a radical communist yet his own writings indicate a more current belief that capitalism is the best means for social change. I was not happy with many past administration appointees - but much of that was ideological and ideological reasons are not sound reasons to reject an appointment.
If you consider saying you are a communist as an adult AND NEVER renouncing it as doing nothing wrong, we will never be able to debate honestly.
If you believe a WH appointee telling high school students that Moa is one of her two favorite POLITICAL philosophers as doing nothing wrong, then I have no interest in debating you.
As for Geithner....he ONLY paid it when it was revealed...and he STILL did not pay what he owed from making the same mistake previously as he was not "cauight" as that was not originally audited.....and yes, he finally paid that when Fox let the cat out of the bag on that one.
To me...if you get audited and you did something wrong, you are not necessarily to blame.....but if you had done it earlier as well, and did not point that out to the auditor....you may be a msart man as we all would do the same...but you have lost the right to be a WH appointee.
Funny....all those Obama supporters complained about Bush and his "lies and deceit"...and the runors flew around about himwith nothing concrete...just rumors.
So here, we have an administration where rumors do not need to fly....we have proof.....a lot of crap on film and yet..."thats OK!...they made mistakes"
Pathetic.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
The Chinese NEED for the Strait of Hormuz to Re-open...Whoooooda Thunkit?- Started by DGS49
- Replies: 1
-
Now there is a push from the left to eliminate the police body cameras they demanded.- Started by ColonelAngus
- Replies: 3
-
-
-
Can some Conservatives List All of the Nations That We're At War with--or Are At War With the US?- Started by candycorn
- Replies: 6
