Van Jones is kinda kooky in my opinion. I digress.

To imply that Obamacare is a Republican plan is ludicrous. Why can politicians not take responsibility for their own legislation? Republicans and Democrats are all the same. I see little difference between the two parties. They are all reactive, knee-jerk legislators that believe there needs to be a law for every situation known to mankind.

Leave the American People alone. Me and my neighbors can take care of ourselves.

Van Jones should read Dr. Covey's book:

“Proactive is a word you won’t find in most dictionaries. It means more than merely taking initiative. It means that as human beings, we are responsible for our own lives. Our behavior is a function of our decisions, not our conditions. We can subordinate feelings to values. We have the initiative and the responsibility to make things happen.

Look at the word responsibility- “response-ability”- the ability to respond. Highly proactive people recognize that responsibility. They do not blame circumstances, conditions or conditioning for their behavior. Their behavior is a product of their own conscious choice, based on values, rather than a product of their conditions, based on feeling.

Because we are, by nature, proactive, if our lives are a function of conditioning and conditions, it is because we have, by conscious decision or by default, chosen to empower those things to control us.

In making such a choice, we become reactive. Reactive people are often affected by their physical environment. If the weather is good, they feel good. If it isn’t, it affects their attitude and their performance. Proactive people can carry their own weather with them. Whether it rains or shines makes no difference to them. They are value driven; and if their value is to produce good quality work, it isn’t a function of whether the weather is conducive to it or not.

Reactive people are also affected by the social environment, by the “social weather.” When people treat them well, they feel well, when people don’t, they become defensive or protective. Reactive people build their emotional lives around the behavior of others, empowering the weaknesses of other people to control them.

The ability to subordinate an impulse to a value is the essence of the proactive person. Reactive people are driven by feelings, by circumstances, by conditions, by their environment. Proactive people are driven by values-carefully thought about, selected and internalized values.

Proactive people are still influenced by external stimuli, whether physical, social, or psychological. But their response to the stimuli, conscious or unconscious, is a value-based choice or response.

As Eleanor Roosevelt observed, “No one can hurt you without your consent.” In the word of Gandhi , “They cannot take away our self respect if we do not give it to them” It is our willing permission, our consent to what happens to us, that hurts us far more than what happens to us in the first place.

I admit this is very hard to accept emotionally, especially if we have had years and years of explaining our misery in the name of circumstance or someone else’s behavior. But until a person can say deeply and honestly, “I am what I am today because of the choices I made yesterday,” that person cannot say, “I choose otherwise.”

-Stephen R. Covey, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Powerful Lessons in Personal Change

>> ^littledragon_79:

Wait...is VJ trying to scan her?

If only he could. What a Bitch!

>> ^ghark:

The irony is that TYT (and the pollsters) seems to be misinformed, while some of the protesters may have similar principles to what the Democrats like to say they stand for (and hence a carefully worded question may elicit the response they wanted), journalists from the OWS movement recognize that "The electoral system is a corrupt mirage where only corporate-approved candidates are allowed to be considered seriously" and that "Obama and the Democrats are part of the problem, not the solution".
http://october2011.org/
blogs/kevin-zeese/van-jones-and-democratic-party-operatives-you-do-not-represent-occupy-movement
Have a look at the sites for many of the occupy movements, most distance themselves from any party affiliation - that's kind of the entire point of the whole protest movement, people are getting raped left, right and center by both parties.


You're absolutely correct, the OWS Movement doesn't align itself with the Democratic Party--that's one of the reasons I love them--that's also one of the reasons Cenk loves them.

I didn't get what you were saying, so I watched the video again--now I see. Cenk is reporting on the poll questions here, not his own. I admit he should have done a better job of showing that the pollster's question was screwy.

Cenk has been outspoken in the past about who the OWS Movement are and what they are about. This video has some good stuff about the difference between mainstream Dem's and OWS.

The irony is that TYT (and the pollsters) seems to be misinformed, while some of the protesters may have similar principles to what the Democrats like to say they stand for (and hence a carefully worded question may elicit the response they wanted), journalists from the OWS movement recognize that "The electoral system is a corrupt mirage where only corporate-approved candidates are allowed to be considered seriously" and that "Obama and the Democrats are part of the problem, not the solution".
http://october2011.org/blogs/kevin-zeese/van-jones-and-democratic-party-operatives-you-do-not-represent-occupy-movement

Have a look at the sites for many of the occupy movements, most distance themselves from any party affiliation - that's kind of the entire point of the whole protest movement, people are getting raped left, right and center by both parties.

So let's take each of those in turn.
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
When politicians 'target' demographics, it is not violent speech.
"Target demographics" isn't even remotely violent, since "target" can also mean "goal", and not just something you shoot at.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
When Robert Gibbs says, "We're going to put our boots on their necks" it is not violent speech.
With the "We will keep a boot on the throat" quote, context matters. For one, Gibbs was quoting Ken Salazar, and for another it's clear from context it's a metaphor for "keep pressure on BP", and not meaning that Ken Salazar plans on literally putting a boot on someone's neck, especially since BP, as a corporation, doesn't actually have a neck.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
When the NRA says, "You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands" it is not violent speech.
This one is in another category. It isn't really a metaphor; we're supposed to take it to literally mean he's never going to voluntarily surrender his guns under any circumstance short of, or even including, lethal force. But it's not coupled with statements that people will likely be coming to threaten to kill you if you don't give up your guns. He's not saying that only violence will stop gun control advocates. It's a colorful and bombastic expression of a deeply held belief, but he's also explicitly trying to have a conversation with the other side, not saying that talk will never work.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
When Glen Beck says, "You're going to have to shoot me in the head to get me to stop talking about the founders" it is not violent speech.
Now, this one in isolation would be very similar to the above. But it's not in isolation. It's followed by this:

They believe in communism. They believe and have called for a revolution. You’re going to have to shoot them in the head. But warning, they may shoot you.
...
They are dangerous because they believe. Karl Marx is their George Washington. You will never change their mind. And if they feel you have lied to them — they’re revolutionaries. Nancy Pelosi, those are the people you should be worried about.

That's the part that's equivalent to blood libel -- calling people like Van Jones violent revolutionaries who seek to destroy the country, people who can't be negotiated with and who can only be stopped by violence.

That's the thing that made blood libel so insidious. It wasn't an explicit call to violence, it was that it portrayed Jews as implacable murderers who couldn't be reasoned with. Just like Beck says his enemies are.

Oh, and they're both lies, which isn't true of your other examples.

In the interest of fostering a proper discussion instead of a focus on a cherry-picked selection...

"But what the politicians don't understand, the ones who have co-opted these revolutionaries and brought them in the process, is they are dangerous. Why? Well, because a lot of them have called for violent revolution in the past and they never distanced themselves from it…

Tea parties believe in small government. We believe in returning to the principles of our Founding Fathers. We respect them. We revere them. You will need to shoot me in the head before I stop talking about the Founders. Shoot me in the head if you try to change our government. I will stand against you and so will millions of others. We believe in something. You in the media and most in Washington don't. The radicals that you and Washington have co-opted and brought in wearing sheep's clothing — change the pose. You will get the ends.

You've been using them? They believe in communism. They believe and have called for a revolution. You're going to have to shoot them in the head. But warning, they may shoot you. They are dangerous because they believe. Karl Marx is their George Washington. You will never change their mind. And if they feel you have lied to them — they're revolutionaries. Nancy Pelosi, those are the people you should be worried about."

I don't condone over the top rhetoric. If I had a TV show, I probably would not be using a phrase like 'shoot in the head'. Just isn't the way I roll. However, it is a patently false accusation to say that Beck was telling people to shoot "his opponents" in the head.

Quite clearly the context of his quote dismisses such an interpretation.

1. He's talking about left-wing "radicals" and "revolutionaries" - people who are determined, dyed-in-the-wool left extremists who have and still have never renounced their proclaimed determination to bring about a revolution, by violence if necessary. Guys like Van Jones and Bill Ayers and their ilk.

2. Then he's talking about conservatives like himself that you are going to have to shoot in the head to stop them from speaking about the founders & conservative ideals.

3. Then he's talking about Democrats who have supposedly 'co-opted' these radicals as allies in order to advance leftist, liberal causes. And he gives them a warning that - like conservatives - you're going to have to shoot them in the head before the stop fighting for what they believe in - or they just might turn on their former allies and shoot them when 'the revolution' comes as the radicals define it.

If you're going to bring up a topic, at least do it accurately.

As the loyal opposition, I don't see how any liberal (here defined as left-leaning, not Van Jones-communist) could be upset.

Sure, there's no official socialized medicine, but it's damned close.

Military effectiveness continues to be compromised with social experiments.

The federal leviathan continues to shovel money into a furnace while expanding.

The New Deal, with its massive debt and social programs that prolonged the Depression, is still regarded as a "model" of good government.

All of the media outside of one channel continues to be leftist water-carriers, despite losing viewership.

The leftstocracy still runs Hollywood.

Leftist unions still run government indoctrina---er--"schools".

You have nothing to worry about, unless you're part of the one-third of the populace paying for the other two-thirds who take more than they give.

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^chilaxe:
I think there's an endlessly rich intellectual world lying beneath the surface of politics, but all we ever see of it is the borderline anti-intellectualism of folks like Arianna Huffington arguing that it's actually good for liberals that Van Jones got pushed out of the White House, because he's too awesome to be constrained by such a job.

I really wish someone in a more mainstream media outlet would tap into the intellectual side of governance and political theory. It can be found all over the web (and I like to think in this particular corner of the web), but it's utterly lacking on TV. I suppose Bill Moyer's Journal occasionally dips into that realm, but I'm not sure if there's anyone but me watching that show.
I'm no fan of Huffington either. Huffpo is a decent news site, but Arianna herself seems devoted to making liberals look hysterical.
Oh, and as to your comment about progressives needing to embrace incrementalism, I agree to a certain point. I think it's important that we have people trying to shift the Overton window to the left, but I'd rather they sound more like Anthony Weiner and Alan Grayson than Michael Moore (though Moore is a good guy to have on our side too).
What I don't think we need is this whole segment of the progressive movement that's decided that the only way to move the Overton window to the left is to constantly badmouth Democrats, largely using the exact same attacks the right uses. I don't get that, but I see it happening all over the blogosphere. Lotsa people who claim to be on the left who can't do anything but talk about Obama being a secret Muslim Republican, and Rahm Emmanuel selling us out, etc.
I don't get it, do they think that driving Obama's unfavorables up is going to move the cause forward?


I could get behind liberalism if there was a movement within it to hold accountable those fellow liberals who sabotage the cause.

Liberals have plenty of sites like 'Crooks and Liars" or Mediawatch to keep an eye on the excesses of conservatives... why can't they do the same to keep an eye on the excesses of fellow liberals?

Next time Michael Moore says he's going to sabotage the healthcare debate by framing it as the US vs. Communism, organize liberals to boycott his short-sightedness. That's a kind of attitude of accountability and honor that I think has broader appeal to moderates.

>> ^chilaxe:
I think there's an endlessly rich intellectual world lying beneath the surface of politics, but all we ever see of it is the borderline anti-intellectualism of folks like Arianna Huffington arguing that it's actually good for liberals that Van Jones got pushed out of the White House, because he's too awesome to be constrained by such a job.


I really wish someone in a more mainstream media outlet would tap into the intellectual side of governance and political theory. It can be found all over the web (and I like to think in this particular corner of the web), but it's utterly lacking on TV. I suppose Bill Moyer's Journal occasionally dips into that realm, but I'm not sure if there's anyone but me watching that show.

I'm no fan of Huffington either. Huffpo is a decent news site, but Arianna herself seems devoted to making liberals look hysterical.

Oh, and as to your comment about progressives needing to embrace incrementalism, I agree to a certain point. I think it's important that we have people trying to shift the Overton window to the left, but I'd rather they sound more like Anthony Weiner and Alan Grayson than Michael Moore (though Moore is a good guy to have on our side too).

What I don't think we need is this whole segment of the progressive movement that's decided that the only way to move the Overton window to the left is to constantly badmouth Democrats, largely using the exact same attacks the right uses. I don't get that, but I see it happening all over the blogosphere. Lotsa people who claim to be on the left who can't do anything but talk about Obama being a secret Muslim Republican, and Rahm Emmanuel selling us out, etc.

I don't get it, do they think that driving Obama's unfavorables up is going to move the cause forward?

My complaint about what Olbermann represents is that he operates under the standard paradigm of 'the harder we push, the more we gain,' as opposed to 'small steps to earn society's trust.' There seem to be continually accumulating mountains of evidence against his paradigm.

Why are Roberts and Alito even on the Supreme Court? Remember that without the 'push harder no matter what' paradigm, passionate liberals wouldn't have turned their back on Gore in 2000, and history would have proceeded the way it was supposed to. No Iraq War for passionate liberals to get upset about, no Guantanamo, etc.

Instead of the argument for healthcare reform being 'we're not advocating socialism; we're just going to make small steps that take the best from the Swiss system," some idiot took a film crew to *Cuba* and said we have to be like the Communists. I hope that's worked out as well as Moore pictured it going in his head.

I think there's an endlessly rich intellectual world lying beneath the surface of politics, but all we ever see of it is the borderline anti-intellectualism of folks like Arianna Huffington arguing that it's actually good for liberals that Van Jones got pushed out of the White House, because he's too awesome to be constrained by such a job.

Remember, this warped woman is Obama, Van Jones is Obama, tax cheat Geithner is Obama, the pedophile school safety czar is Obama, Rev. Wright is Obama. They're all Obama!

tell that to the banks, auto industry, agricultural industry, defense sector, pharmaceutical industry

Not helping your case. Government involvement has insulated these industries from the market, established unfair practices, weakened industry, and left them unable to compete in a competitive market. All govenment has done is establish a protectionsism racket that has artificially inflated costs and limited competition. Government has done these industries no favors. Every single one you mention I could go on at length in regards to how they have been severely damaged by government subsidies. Lather/rinse/repeating by establishing a false economy of 'green' energy is insipid.

he's actually bashing government money shuffle boondoggles in the vid itself

No the one I watched. He's proposing that we establish a faux industry. He wants car companies to stop making cars (which people actually pay real money for) and start making wind turbines & solar panels instead. This swap would have to be subsidized because no one is buying wind or solar because they are still too expensive and inefficient. It would be an economy entirely based on government subsudies. Now I'm 100% sure that idiots like Van Jones are excited by that prospect. Any American with two brain cells and a spine should be horrified by it.

Ha... in all fairness, don't Dean's comments qualify this video for the Lies channel? Maybe he's just saying it win an argument, but that still qualifies as a lie.

Of course Van Jones believes in 9/11 conspiracies, and so do most of his fans. He self-identifies as a far-left radical who sometimes condones extra-judicial violence (the Rodney King riots).

Hmm, maybe he'll stand up for the environment at least, him being so progressive and all.

Oh, I forgot he forced Van Jones out. I guess he's not environment either.

I *promote this video in honor of Van Jones, the Obama cabinet member who was forced out for calling for 9/11 investigation and also to "Free Mumia."