• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama adviser Van Jones resigns amid controversy

Comprehension is something you need every bit as much as a basic english class.

Let's look at your factual errors:

1) He resigned. This is not "FIRED". Unless you have proof that he was forced to resign, you are making stuff up or just guessing.

2) That is evidence only that there was a controversy. No one denied that. This is not "big EVIDENCE" of anything, except that a few people raised a stink.

Innuendo is not guilt of any crime.

you need "proof that he was forced to resign?"

LOLOLOL!

he committed no crime, who's suggesting he did?

being a racist hater and an idiot is no crime
 
you need "proof that he was forced to resign?"

LOLOLOL!

he committed no crime, who's suggesting he did?

being a racist hater and an idiot is no crime

Grim, you are going to say something about him calling someone an idiot right?

Or does that only bother you when Glenn Beck is called one?
 
van jones is an idiot

he didn't lose his job in 5 days because of his wisdom

the way he went out is not real bright, either

he certainly didn't do his ex boss any favors

hello
 
Grim, you are going to say something about him calling someone an idiot right?

Or does that only bother you when Glenn Beck is called one?

Calling someone an "idiot" (which I'm guilty of doing from time to time), although not very dignified, is something that's pretty common, and isn't a big deal to me... Especially on a political forum.

The only time I call someone out for slinging insults and launching personal attacks, is when someone uses them as their response, rather than responding to the actual facts/issue at hand.

Example: O'Reilly obtains document proving Pelosi stole Government funds
Response: O'Reilly is an idiot and proven liar

The prof responded to the topic, then injected an insult. He didn't use the insult as his response.

.
 
Last edited:
And who would set the criteria and standards for what is considered to be American or Anti-American?

Yes I watched that system of Checks and Balances that were set forth by the Founding Fathers be tossed out the window for 6 long years during the last administration...
Why the urgent need now?

What are you talking about huh GD American/Anti-American are you vaugely trying to refer to Mr. Jone Political Standings if so not biting has nothing to do with the fact that he nor any other so-called Czar has every had to sit in front of Congress and answer question before they got the job.

Really so you understand that the Check and Balance only work well when there are two different powers in place unlike now and every other time that a Party control both the White House and Congress.
 
So what power did he have that you opposed to specifically? And how did his beliefs make him unable to properly use that power? Let's move beyond vague accusations and into specifics.

Control over mine and your tax Money to start with, help write policy even thou he never was confirm by Congress to do so.
 
The Associated Press: Obama adviser Van Jones resigns amid controversy



Setting aside the hilarious understatement in claiming he was "linked to...derogatory comments about Republicans," this is good to see.

Hopefully we can recognize that this idiot got the appropriate treatment for his actions, and we can in turn give it the appropriate amount of attention it deserves - a few dozen posts in this thread before we drop it.

Van Jones, in the past, has made statements supporting claims of truthers. Rather than be a distraction to his party during the health care debate, it is good that he stepped down. I hope Obama does better on his next pick, and chooses someone a little less controversial, say, someone who claims that Republicans had inside information that George Bush was a poopy head. :mrgreen:
 
Calling someone an "idiot" (which I'm guilty of doing from time to time), although not very dignified, is something that's pretty common, and isn't a big deal to me... Especially on a political forum.

The only time I call someone out for slinging insults and launching personal attacks, is when someone uses them as their response, rather than responding to the actual facts/issue at hand.

Example: O'Reilly obtains document proving Pelosi stole Government funds
Response: O'Reilly is an idiot and proven liar

The prof responded to the topic, then injected an insult. He didn't use the insult as his response.

.
You make a valid point but I'd still rather see no insults at all just for the sake of politeness. Secondly, the Prof diminished the valid points that he made by adding an insult.
 
calling an idiot a forum member who doesn't know the difference between "there" and "their" is one thing

but the leader of the free world and his hi ranking employees are another

and obama himself is an idiot

1. he hired van jones, something apparently you can get away with in chicago, but across the 57 states---dang, you gotta be really dumb not to see IN ADVANCE how that's gonna go down

2. he sent home all his congressfolk for recess with NO SINGLE health care plan to sell, promote or defend, leaving them all open to every possible objection, real, imagined, trumped up---a HUGE mistake

3. it's sunday and gibbs was just on abc with stephy, axelrod on mtp with david---the president is to appear before both houses assembled wed nite to "reboot" (abc's words) his obamacare, and he STILL has no idea what he's gonna do, is there gonna be a public option yes or no, no one can say, is the prez gonna write the bill himself this time, it's still to be determined---all THIS according to white house spokesfolk THEMSELVES, just when do they plan to come up with all these answers, wednesday at dinner?

4. he appointed a special prosecutor to politicize and criminalize the heroic agents who flipped khalid sheikh muhammad

5. he sent out, to accompany his natl address to the kiddies, a lesson plan that was "inartfully" (the doe's word) worshipful---what does it tell you about the president, not the office of the presidency, but the president's PERSON, when he wants to talk to all the kids second period AND HALF THE NATION GOES BALLISTIC---dang, that's one MIGHTY UNPOPULAR president, folks, very very sad, no one TRUSTS him

i'd feel sorry for him if he weren't so arrogant as to have believed that he'd be able to figure out on the job all the stuff concerning leadership he obviously has no clue about

it times as tuff as these, america's final days

obama's an idiot

sorry

(by the way, i stopped at 5 points for brevity's sake, i coulda gone on and on and on...)
 
how bout the time he told americans to shut up who were expressing legitimate concerns about his horribly-conceived, amorphous health care reform?

how bout when he asked their neighbors to rat em out if they were fishy?

how bout when treas secty and tax cheat geithner and chief econ adviser lawrence summers went on mtp and ftn to suggest raising taxes on EVERYONE?

idiotic, anyone?

it sure aint my fault
 
Doesn't matter he still should have had to sit in front of Congress and I would say he had allot more power as do the rest of the So-Called Czars.

Check and Balance Folks that is what we are talking about Check and Balances

I got a question scorpion how many Czar's do you think Obama has because many of the talking heads seem to get some of them wrong and include in their list positions that were created long before Obama and who were confirmed by congress.
 
Another man's job ruined by the right. He renounced these ideas before he was hired and the right decided to destroy his job, reputation, and livelihood. I have never seen anything like the political atmosphere the Right is creating right now. The Clinton years were ridiculous, but this is like that on steroids. What gives? Throw all rationality, facts, and sanity out the door because you lost? Argh. Whether in power or out of power, the right continues to make Americans look very very stupid.
 
Last edited:
Another man's job ruined by the right. He renounced these ideas before he was hired and the right decided to destroy his job, reputation, and livelihood. I have never seen anything like the political atmosphere the Right is creating right now. The Clinton years were ridiculous, but this is like that on steroids. What gives? Throw all rationality, facts, and sanity out the door because you lost? Argh. Whether in power or out of power, the right continues to make Americans look very very stupid.


Riiiiiight.

And I'm sure you'd be so charitable to a Birther who later "renounced" these views.

Riiiiiight.
 
I got a question scorpion how many Czar's do you think Obama has because many of the talking heads seem to get some of them wrong and include in their list positions that were created long before Obama and who were confirmed by congress.

By all accounts 36 Czar far more then any other President here is a good story on it,

Some Question Whether Obama Has Too Many 'Czars' - Political News - FOXNews.com

From the article,

In fact, the vast majority of Obama's czar's technically report to one of his Cabinet secretaries or to Vice President Biden, which raises another question.

"Who is minding all the czars?" asked presidential scholar Marth Kumar. "Is there a template for how they produce information and how they then provide it to the White House?"

Even if the president is able to manage his czars efficiently, some of his critics are frustrated because the czars don't have to answer to Congress.

Hence my problem with all the Czars no Check and Balance they aren't confirmed and wield way to much power.

And this is a quote from Sen. Byrd on the subject.

Senator Robert C., Byrd (D-W.Va) has raised the issues that so many czars "can threaten the constitutional system of checks and balances."
 
By all accounts 36 Czar far more then any other President here is a good story on it,

Some Question Whether Obama Has Too Many 'Czars' - Political News - FOXNews.com

from your article:

But by some accounts, Obama has nearly three dozen czars in his administration

What a lovely get out of jail free statement that is.

the real answer is there are ZERO czars.

Let's spontaneously label a position a czar, get a few more people to do the same, and then tally them up.. hmm, lets see what we come up with.

wow.. I count 36 positions that people have decided to label czar.. ok, lets present this factually:

But by some accounts, Obama has nearly three dozen czars in his administration
 
from your article:



What a lovely get out of jail free statement that is.

the real answer is there are ZERO czars.

Let's spontaneously label a position a czar, get a few more people to do the same, and then tally them up.. hmm, lets see what we come up with.

wow.. I count 36 positions that people have decided to label czar.. ok, lets present this factually:

What is a "czar" but someone appointed to advise on and oversee policy on a particular matter?
 
wow.. I count 36 positions that people have decided to label czar.. ok, lets present this factually:

it's not me calling them it's the White House that is calling them along with Congress but hey nothing like the Truth on this matter.

The bottom line is this all of the czars need to go I don't care who is in the White House there is no Check and Balance and when someone like Sen. Byrd starts making statement like I'm saying then people need to say oh wait a minute lets take a harder look at all of these czars that the President is appointing.
 
What is a "czar" but someone appointed to advise on and oversee policy on a particular matter?

It's a loosely defined catchy label that can be tossed around at will.
 
it's not me calling them it's the White House that is calling them along with Congress but hey nothing like the Truth on this matter.

The bottom line is this all of the czars need to go I don't care who is in the White House there is no Check and Balance and when someone like Sen. Byrd starts making statement like I'm saying then people need to say oh wait a minute lets take a harder look at all of these czars that the President is appointing.


hell even Glenn Beck makes this disclaimer:

• Since czar isn't an official job title, the number is somewhat in the eye of the beholder.

Glenn Beck - Current Events & Politics - List of Obama's Czars

So presenting something that is in the eye of the beholder as factual is a bit dishonest, no?
 
hell even Glenn Beck makes this disclaimer:



Glenn Beck - Current Events & Politics - List of Obama's Czars

So presenting something that is in the eye of the beholder as factual is a bit dishonest, no?

Tell that to the white House and Congress they are the one's who have decide to say these folks are Czars and given them allot more power then they should have and don't fall under any form of Check and Balance what part of this are you missing so I can try to make it clear to you.

As for Mr. Beck please I take his remark like a grain of salt.
 
Control over mine and your tax Money to start with, help write policy even thou he never was confirm by Congress to do so.

What types of spending can they pass without authorization? Your second objection describes most every congressional staffer, do you object to them too?
 
Back
Top Bottom