Media Matters: Hot Air “smeared” Van Jones by calling him a Truther
posted at 5:55 pm on September 17, 2009 by Allahpundit
Some free publicity for their new “Smearbusters” page, displaying the sort of honesty and integrity for which the David Brock brand is known and loved. Here’s how they describe the “smear” of asserting that a guy who signed a petition for 911Truth.org might, in fact, be a 9/11 Truther:
In 2004, Van Jones did sign a petition requesting further investigation into the 9/11 attacks. The petition did not suggest that the Bush administration “blew up the World Trade Center,” but rather that the response to the pending attacks was inadequate. Jones has stated that the petition does not reflect his views.
Listed as a source for the “smear” is this post at Hot Air. Question: Anything missing from the Brock bunch’s characterization of the Truther petition? Reading it, it sounds like Jones did nothing more than accuse Bush of not having taken the early intel about an Al Qaeda plot involving planes seriously enough. Let’s revisit the petition language, shall we?
An alliance of 100 prominent Americans and 40 family members of those killed on 9/11 today announced the release of the 911 Truth Statement, a call for immediate inquiry into evidence that suggests high-level government officials may have deliberately allowed the September 11th attacks to occur. The Statement supports an August 31st Zogby poll that found nearly 50% of New Yorkers believe the government had foreknowledge and “consciously failed to act,” with 66% wanting a new 9/11 investigation.
“Deliberately allowed” — i.e. high treason and conspiracy to commit mass murder — goes a hell of a lot further than accusing Bush of an “inadequate response,” but this isn’t the first time we’ve seen a lefty propaganda shop sanitize the foulest element of the petition for the benefit of its audience. Remember when David Shuster conveniently neglected to spell out for the MSNBC faithful just what was in the document that Van Jones signed?
While you’re over there, you might want to read their new dossier on Andrew Breitbart, who’s done a very bad thing this month by exposing systemic corruption at a taxpayer-funded left-wing nonprofit and must be punished accordingly.
Update (Ed): We should point out that Media Matters has begun a pattern of screaming “Smear!” when people point out what others have actually said. Van Jones signed the 9/11 Truth petition, a voluntary act; we just pointed it out. Similarly, Media Matters yesterday accused Fox of “smearing” Tresa Kaelke in accusing her of committing murder by … airing the tape where she claims to have committed murder. Media Matters must have looked up “smear” in Orwell’s Dictionary, 1984 edition.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 Next »
I see, this is all about whether he was a truther or not… hahah… complete
whitewashredaction of his communist activities and other ‘progressive’ ideasgatorboy on September 17, 2009 at 11:55 PM
That is all fine and dandy, but there is no credible evidence to think that “scenario” applies at all to Jones. Quite the contrary, as others have sited on this and other threads.
MB4 on September 17, 2009 at 11:57 PM
At some point, doesn’t “Libel” begin to come into play?
Or is it essentially dead letter law?
Techie on September 18, 2009 at 12:04 AM
I don’t have the time to wade through six pages of comments to determine what you are talking about, but were there any examples of Van Jones supporting any of the 9/11 Truth LIHOP/MIHOP arguments?
bileduct on September 18, 2009 at 12:04 AM
OT, but the Massachusetts House just voted to let the Governor appoint Ted Kennedy’s replacement.
uknowmorethanme on September 18, 2009 at 12:05 AM
As a side note, it’s interesting to see that names are starting to disappear from the 2004 petition.
For some reason I can’t load the page right now, but there were at least three names that have been removed:
28. Jodie Evans, co-founder, Code Pink
43. Paul Hawken, bestselling author, environmentalist, entrepreneur, founder of Smith & Hawken
46. Van Jones, executive director, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
bileduct on September 18, 2009 at 12:06 AM
Anyone who in any way and for whatever reason believes that government allowed the World Trade Center towers to be demolished has no business working in any capacity for government. The idea is preposterous. It’s as simple as that.
tartan on September 18, 2009 at 12:07 AM
I really don’t care if this has been said before now,
“Lookin fo nub in all the rong places, lookin for nub in so many faces, searching for trufe….”
Van, Van, Van we gotcha nummer baabby,
give it up sucka.
OkieDoc on September 18, 2009 at 12:07 AM
Whew! I just scanned all of that. Jeez, I am worn out.heh
d1carter on September 18, 2009 at 12:10 AM
chemman on September 18, 2009 at 12:16 AM
Okay if we accept Mediamaters/Van Jones explanation that he is the dumbest lawyer this country has ever seen signing a document that he hadn’t read and/or didn’t understand.
He claims that he is not now nor ever has been a truther, how does he explain his 2002 truther protest in San Francisco?
http://www.rense.com/general18/march.htm
list of signatories at the bottom of the declaration.
The delegation will demand that these questions (and others) be raised and answered publicly-
At what point do we conclude he is the dumbest schmuck on the planet or he is lying about being a truther?
DSchoen on September 18, 2009 at 12:21 AM
Interesting article on Salon where they contacted all of the people on the petition and asked them whether or not they would sign the petition again. Whilst the overwhelming response (from those who actually answered) is that they would, there are a few interesting exceptions. One is:
Paul Hawken, author and co-founder of Smith & Hawken: (Editorial note: Hawken requested to have his name removed from the list of signatories) I don’t regret signing it because I never did sign it, and I am not sure Van did either. What might have happened is that an e-mail was sent around calling for an endorsement for a more thorough investigation into the events leading up to and on the day of 9/11. I have asked for any records showing that I signed anything and the 911truth.org committee says that they are unable to supply any such record. I was completely unaware of the press release or that my name was used until I was contacted during the Beck lynching. I do remember e-mails around that time but they were about the families of the victims feeling that their government (the 9/11 Commission) had let them down.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/09/11/truth_petition/index.html
bileduct on September 18, 2009 at 12:22 AM
The difference is that this guy denies signing it. Van Jones doesn’t.
blink on September 18, 2009 at 12:27 AM
Um, yes there is.
There’s an online petition with Van Jones’ name on it. That’s evidence.
You might not like that evidence. You might find flaws in that evidence. You might even be able to discredit the evidence.
But don’t state that there is no evidence. That’s just stupid.
blink on September 18, 2009 at 12:30 AM
chemman on September 18, 2009 at 12:32 AM
You are right in the sense that the questions in that statement are highly suggestive.
However, remember that at the time the Bush administration were avoiding an inquiry into the events of 9/11, and I do believe that many of the questions raised in that statement were ultimately addressed by the 9/11 Commission.
I’d still like to see evidence of him personally supporting any of the LIHOP/MIHOP arguments before putting him in that box.
bileduct on September 18, 2009 at 12:33 AM
Mary Mapes never checked her “source”. HA contacted the organization and did verify that yes he did sign it and yes he did know what it meant.
Now Seixon or MB4, can you explain his 2002 “truther” protest march in SF?
http://www.rense.com/general18/march.htm
list of Organizers at the bottom of the declaration.
San Francisco March To
Demand Congressional
Inquiry Of 911
Blah blah read it.
DSchoen on September 18, 2009 at 12:37 AM
You cut off my statement.
9/11 Truther is a term that has even been used to describe people who believe the Government failed to properly advise cleanup crews of air quality issues.
Reread my statement and respond to it as it it written if you would like to have an honest argument.
bileduct on September 18, 2009 at 12:38 AM
That was pretty dumb for the record. People are convicted with just circumstantial evidence all the time and the vast majority of the time the mens reanecessary for a crime is proven with circumstantial evidence alone. You make some decent points but you’re way in way over your head with legal stuff.
crr6 on September 18, 2009 at 12:38 AM
The guy is a communist. The rest is a distraction.
Johan Klaus on September 18, 2009 at 12:41 AM
What?
Hot Air used the word “truther” in their claim. Why should you get to define the term?
blink on September 18, 2009 at 12:42 AM
Now there is an untrue and racist statement. Beck did not lynch anyone, or at least he has not been arrested for it.
Johan Klaus on September 18, 2009 at 12:50 AM
Uhm, did you read the statement?
LIHOP/MIHOP
MIHOP
LIHOP
MIHOP
LIHOP/MIHOP other?
LIHOP/MIHOP other?
LIHOP
DSchoen on September 18, 2009 at 12:53 AM
Van Jones is a Truther.
Dr. ZhivBlago on September 18, 2009 at 1:19 AM
How about the fact that Van Jones’ actions match what he signed? Would that be sufficient?
It’s easy to believe when his starting point was here. It should be noted in the latter statement that Van Jones is claiming that there was an Iraqi connection to the 9/11 bombings, and that we deserved 9/11 because of the bombs we’d dropped on Iraq.
unclesmrgol on September 18, 2009 at 1:49 AM
Looks like a whole bunch of legitimate questions, most of which were answered by the 9/11 Commission.
bileduct on September 18, 2009 at 2:34 AM
I can’t decide which is the best term to describe Media Matters:
COMINTERN or Third International?
viking01 on September 18, 2009 at 2:34 AM
Uh oh. The troll is back.
viking01 on September 18, 2009 at 2:35 AM
Really? How close to midnight did that vote get taken?
Cindy Munford on September 18, 2009 at 2:39 AM
To me, the biggest thing is that Jones was hired to be the “Green Jobs” guy and he was on record as saying that it wasn’t just all about “Green Jobs”, that if it stopped there, it wouldn’t be worth it.
So he either accepted a job that meant nothing to him, or “Green Jobs” was the first step of transformation, just like he had said. Beck has said he’s probably called the Pubs worse names than a——-, himself. And while I’m not comfortable with a 9/11 Truther in the Whitehouse, it still didn’t bug me as much as crypto-marxism.
Axeman on September 18, 2009 at 2:42 AM
Most of those questions are stupid, but that’s not the point.
The point is that these questions were on the petition.
What else you got?
blink on September 18, 2009 at 2:49 AM
Cindy Munford on September 18, 2009 at 2:39 AM
The 12:05 link (still active) is to the AP sourced story via Yahoo which reads thus:
“The bill was immediately moved to the Massachusetts Senate late Thursday, and leaders called for a formal session at noon Friday. Senate President Therese Murray, a Democrat, has been tightlipped about the bill’s chances in that chamber. ”
Foxnews also has the story of FoxNews reporter origin which is no more specific about the time of the vote than “late Thursday.” They also mention how the law was previously changed to keep Romney from having such authority.
The link to the Foxnews take is on their front page in the Blue “Latest News” menu bar in the right hand column. (Directly below the green “Get a quote” FoxBusiness menu bar.
viking01 on September 18, 2009 at 3:00 AM
That’s the same point I tried to make clear to Seixon at least half a dozen times.
Sure, it’s possible that Jones didn’t read and understand what he was signing, and is a unwitting dupe of Truthers desperate to mainstream their nuttery. (What this would say about him is left as an exercise to the reader.)But the only relevant evidence that’s the case is Jones’ own self-serving statements, made after this became a political issue and he had a motive to lie.
Seixon’s answer to this is to say, essentially, “But people sign things without reading them all the time.” And while that’s perfectly true, it’s also perfectly irrelevant. Jones is not “people”, like J. Random Facebook User. He’s a Yale-educated attorney and an experienced political operative, and he endorsed the petition not just in his own name, but in his capacity as executive director of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. We’re not talking about some speaking-for-a-constituency-of-one halfwit like Janeane Garofolo; this is a sophisticated professional and activist lending the prestige of his small but fairly important NorCal political advocacy group to the petition. To believe that he didn’t fully comprehend what he was endorsing requires you to ignore all of that.
So no, we don’t know with 100% certainty what Van Jones knew when he signed the petition. But 100% certainty isn’t required for conviction in a real court, let alone the court of public opinion. The facts of the matter are that (a) Van Jones signed the Truther petition and (b) Van Jones is not a retard. The most reasonable inference to be drawn from those facts is that Van Jones is either a Truther or was willing to pose as one as long as it was politically convenient.
Everything else, including Seixon’s rather hilarious misconceptions about standards of proof and the utility of circumstantial evidence, is just screaming.
Centerfire on September 18, 2009 at 3:09 AM
You cannot under any reasonable justice system, convict someone solely based upon one single piece of circumstantial evidence. You can, however, convict someone based on a gathering of circumstantial evidence. In this instance, the only valid circumstantial evidence is that Van Jones signed a petition that included Truther sentiments. There is nothing else. His name on a web page over people to contact about some protest doesn’t constitute anything at all. There’s no evidence Jones even knew about that, he is simply given as the contact for the organization he worked for.
I will repeat yet again:
A signature on a document does not prove how or why it came to be there.
Seixon on September 18, 2009 at 3:25 AM
Other than that, I see that the “Osama wears a gold ring, therefore he cannot be a Muslim” logic is still prevailing here. Lovely.
By this amazing logic, we can conclude that John Edwards did not father an illegitimate child, because he’s just too smart to have done something so stupid, and he’s a lawyer so he should have known he wouldn’t get away with concealing it.
This, again, is the “Osama is not a Muslim because he wears a gold ring” parody of what you think is logic.
I’m sure you think it’s rational to believe that Jones would say that he was duped by the Truthers pre-emptively by knowing beforehand that the petition he had signed wasn’t what it was and that he was going to be selected for an administration position so he should go back and check every single thing he ever signed in his whole life.
Others might not think that is rational, and that it borders on insane.
Seixon on September 18, 2009 at 3:31 AM
Maybe if Jones didn’t come across as a whack job before 9/11 and after 9/11 then maybe Media Matters wouldn’t seem to be grasping at straws.
The latest Jones excuse sounds like a politician who when his vote backfires claims he didn’t read the bill.
viking01 on September 18, 2009 at 3:35 AM
Actions? All I see is his name added as a contact for an organization he worked for on a web page. How does that constitute evidence of anything?
OK, so Van Jones, Truther, states that we deserved 9/11 for our actions in the Middle East. How can he say that we deserved 9/11 if, as a Truther, he would believe that 9/11 was perpetrated by the US?
To an objective eye, that would seem to be evidence that he’s not a Truther. A Truther would never state that we deserved 9/11 because a Truther believes that we committed it ourselves.
Seixon on September 18, 2009 at 3:36 AM
Yes, well, I do believe it has already been proven, and brought attention to by Hot Air and others, that lawmakers are not in the habit of actually reading all the bills they sign.
According to the prevailing “logic” here at Hot Air, every lawmaker that ever signed a bill has read, understood, and agreed to 100% of every bill they’ve ever signed in their life, ever.
Does that sound reasonable to you, or a bit too “reality-based”.
Seixon on September 18, 2009 at 3:39 AM
Unless it’s a Clintonian non-denial denial. Then when he says he wasn’t what he wasn’t…. he is.
viking01 on September 18, 2009 at 3:40 AM
Joe Wilson has some ‘splainin’ to do:
Read the rest here.
This is why I would never give money to any politician I haven’t yet fully investigated. I don’t care if they’re Republican or not, these a**holes can’t be trusted.
Has Joe Wilson had a change of heart since his big government socialized health care for illegals vote in 2003, or is he simply another hypocritical phony taking advantage of pissed off conservatives?
2Brave2Bscared on September 18, 2009 at 3:49 AM
Van Jones is a troother.
Blake on September 18, 2009 at 3:59 AM
The only parody of logic here is that which leads you to imagine this example strengthens your argument. Edwards admitted the affair, genius, but denies paternity — much like Jones admits signing the petition but denies knowing and approving of its contents. The fact that Edwards is a super-smart lawyer isn’t particularly relevant to whether he knocked up a honey he admitted to boinking, but the fact that Jones is a super-smart lawyer has considerable relevance to whether he read a document he admitted to signing. Being as how reading documents is a significant part of what lawyers do.
I’m sure you think that the above is comprehensible English. Others might not think that it is comprehensible, and that it borders on complete gibberish.
Centerfire on September 18, 2009 at 4:16 AM
Because, of course, thousand-page pieces of arcane legislation are exactly like two-page petitions.
Let us mourn the passing of another straw man, brutally murdered in its prime.
Centerfire on September 18, 2009 at 4:30 AM
sexion would ride a 18 inch barbed c*ck of satan and say”no no its not what you think!”
theTarCzar on September 18, 2009 at 5:04 AM
…have been saying most Democrats are Communists.Since nothing but TRUTHER seems to be the point of contention, I guess Democrats make no bones about someone on their side being a self admitted Communist, so it must be true that Democrats commonly ARE Communists. Simple logic.
Jeff from WI on September 18, 2009 at 5:37 AM
Nice try…but you got the trolling backward. This is AllahPundit’s house and you’re a stray dog who wandered into the yard and is now dry-humping him to no end in an attempt to bait him. AP is no longer beta. He’s alpha.
Got envy? LoL.
RepubChica on September 18, 2009 at 5:48 AM
heh, looked up smear in Orwell’s 1984…
Ed, you are too gracious with media [ohne] matters, as if this generation of revisionists have any conscious contact with historical context. This subsequent generation of Marxists make up their own words, “Uniter”. That goes beyond making up their own meanings to existing words, “Liberal”, as if playing the opposite game has become too constrictive for newbie Marxists.
maverick muse on September 18, 2009 at 6:13 AM
When are Van’s 15 minutes up?
BuckeyeSam on September 18, 2009 at 6:34 AM
expired
Media Matters & Zombie, Inc.
maverick muse on September 18, 2009 at 6:41 AM
If Van Jones thinks he’s been smeared by Hot Air, Beck or Fox, then hire an attorney or shut up.
Jeff from WI on September 18, 2009 at 7:10 AM
Media Matters–another example of the end stage of moral relativism
mwbri on September 18, 2009 at 7:13 AM
Seeing as how being a Muslim is what Osama bin Laden does, I guess that means he would never wear a gold ring. Right? Anything that would ever indicate Osama bin Laden wore a gold ring would therefore be fake, right?
Seixon on September 18, 2009 at 7:23 AM
But, but, but… That’s what lawmakers do. Are you getting fed up with your own shallow logic yet?
Seixon on September 18, 2009 at 7:24 AM
How would an attorney help him? There is no libel law in the US.
Seixon on September 18, 2009 at 7:25 AM
Better let ACORN know that.
Jeff from WI on September 18, 2009 at 7:45 AM
ACORN can go bust a nut for all I care. How many more comments we need in this thread to hit the record?
Seixon on September 18, 2009 at 8:02 AM
Yes, we really need a couple thousand more of Seixon’s lame arguments in order to break a record. No thanks. You are a real waste of bandwidth.
Blake on September 18, 2009 at 8:37 AM
Blake on September 18, 2009 at 8:37 AM
He truly seems to enjoy reading his own words. As long as he has himself, he’ll never be alone. I believe the discription for this is Trolling.
kingsjester on September 18, 2009 at 8:39 AM
discription=description
oops. Too early.
kingsjester on September 18, 2009 at 8:40 AM
Truther is as Truther does.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on September 18, 2009 at 8:49 AM
Oh, Man….
PLEEEAAASE keep talking Jones.
You can nominate yourself as poster child for the implosion on the Left.
*puts popcorn in microwave*
Saltysam on September 18, 2009 at 9:07 AM
If it is so defensible…the man would not have resigned.
He resigned. Done. Over and Out.
You can try to regain your ‘reputation’, but it won’t work. You’re out. Gone. Buh-Bye.
bridgetown on September 18, 2009 at 9:14 AM
“The bombs the government drops in Iraq are the bombs that blew up in New York City.”
- Van Jones in 2001
“It’s the bombs that the government has been dropping around the world that are now blowing up inside the U.S. borders.”
- Van Jones in 2002
Which brave soul wants to square these statement with the claim that Jones is a Truther? To an objective observer, he seems to be of the opinion that the US’ chickens came home to roost, just like Jeremiah Wright has said, that the US was at fault for creating the hate that caused these attacks to happen against us.
Isn’t that sort of mutually exclusive with being a Truther? A Truther wouldn’t state that the US got what it deserved – since they believe the US perpetrated the attacks.
Seixon on September 18, 2009 at 9:18 AM
Did you get enough rest? I imagine a god amongst men, who craps gold and pisses rainbows must need plenty.
More importantly, are you going to comment on Van Jones’ next Truther connection, which you’ve so far ignored?
MadisonConservative on September 18, 2009 at 9:23 AM
If I were to add your name to a list of contacts for, say, a Birther rally on a web site somewhere, without your knowledge, would you deem that to be a “connection” to you being a Truther?
Or is it just another example of guilt-by-association?
How about you answer my question about Jones’ actual statements and sentiments about 9/11, in which he espoused the view that the USA deserved what it got, a curious sentiment for a Truther to have seeing as how they believe the US committed the attacks themselves.
Seixon on September 18, 2009 at 9:28 AM
If any lawmaker voted for a Truther bill, then Hot Air would be fully justified in calling that lawmaker a Truther.
What else ya got?
blink on September 18, 2009 at 9:28 AM
MadisonConservative on September 18, 2009 at 9:23 AM
I was copying th same link when you posted, Mad. So, how about it, Scooter? Are you going to address this? Or just keep bloviating?
kingsjester on September 18, 2009 at 9:30 AM
Why are you mixing Birther and Truther?
BTW, Van Jones has never denied signing the petition.
blink on September 18, 2009 at 9:30 AM
Yeah, I pointed out that if Bush had the same history, we’d be calling him a truther as well. However, Seixon didn’t want to respond to that. He was too busy boasting about his blog that nobody seems to know about, his fame that no one seems aware of, and the blog listing on someone’s blog that no one’s heard of.
MadisonConservative on September 18, 2009 at 9:31 AM
Beck is right. VJ will just be working dangerously behind the scenes now.
ErinF on September 18, 2009 at 9:32 AM
Except the petition that Van Jones admits to having signed was only partly about Trutherist sentiments. Most of it was about conducting a new 9/11 investigation, which quite many people feel would be warranted.
Anyways, how about reading Jones’ actual statements about 9/11 from directly after the attacks, and before the Iraq war. They don’t seem to mesh with him being a Truther, more like a left-wing loon who holds the US responsible for the acts of terrorists.
Seixon on September 18, 2009 at 9:32 AM
Seixon,
Try to remember the point of this thread.
Hot Air had sufficient reason to claim that Van Jones is a Truther.
It’s a lie to state that they had no reason, and it’s wrong to state they had insufficient reason.
Hot Air was attempting to convict the guy. Hot Air just made one claim, and had sufficient evidence to make that claim.
blink on September 18, 2009 at 9:34 AM
As partisan as you are, I think it’s safe to say you are lying.
Seixon on September 18, 2009 at 9:34 AM
Yes, yes, you believe it’s fine to go around claiming whatever you feel like as long as no one calls you on your bullshit. There’s a phrase for that type of person, it starts with smear and ends in merchant. Did you come from the Andrew Sullivan School of Smear?
Seixon on September 18, 2009 at 9:35 AM
Ha ha. Is that the best you got?
If any lawmaker voted for a bill which contained any Trutherist sentiments, then Hot Air would be justified in calling that lawmaker a Truther.
blink on September 18, 2009 at 9:36 AM
Seixon on September 18, 2009 at 9:18 AM
So your reason to be is the defense of people who “mistakenly” signed truther petitions? What is the point?
Do you want Van Jones back on the job as the green czar?
Really Right on September 18, 2009 at 9:36 AM
“The bombs the government drops in Iraq are the bombs that blew up in New York City.”
- Van Jones in 2001
“It’s the bombs that the government has been dropping around the world that are now blowing up inside the U.S. borders.”
- Van Jones in 2002
Are these the sentiments of a Truther, or a left-wing loon of the Blame America First crowd? Ponder. Think. Discuss. Go.
Seixon on September 18, 2009 at 9:37 AM
I think it’s called the Daily Kos, but you are right, no one is there.
Jeff from WI on September 18, 2009 at 9:37 AM
Can you read?
I stated that Hot Air has sufficient evidence for their claim.
I’ve already debunked your Sullivan comparisons. Do you have a learning disability?
blink on September 18, 2009 at 9:38 AM
Again, the fact that their might be some reason to believe that Van Jones isn’t a Truther doesn’t mean that Hot Air’s claims weren’t justified.
But, yes, most Truthers started out as a Blame America Firster.
blink on September 18, 2009 at 9:40 AM
No, I just want Hot Air to stick to facts instead of joining the Andrew Sullivan School of Smear. The simple fact that Van Jones signed a Truther petition is more than enough to call his integrity into question, in addition to his sentiments about Republicans, and history as a communist.
When you overreach, you look the fool. Don’t help your opponent when they’re digging themselves a hole.
Seixon on September 18, 2009 at 9:40 AM
First of all, why did you switch from Birthers to Truthers in the same question? That makes no sense.
Secondly, I’m not on any mailing lists that would end up with me having my name implicitly added to such a thing. I’m not stupid enough to sign crap without knowing what it says.
Thirdly, I regularly check where my name is being used. If I see it on something I don’t like, I contact the site and get it taken care of right away, not five goddamned years later.
Truthers often started out that way. Lots and lots of paleoconservatives are very close with the Truther movement. They like to blame America for tons of ills, and are always buddying up with the likes of Alex Jones, the king of the Truthers.
If you’re calling me a liar, f*** off. You’ve already demonstrated that you don’t know a damned thing about me. I’ve long since stated my disgust and abandonment of the Republican party. I’ve often criticized Bush for his late-term socialism, his amnesty shilling, and his other liberal moves. Take your foot out of your mouth before you continue typing. For someone who claims to be so knowledgeable, the only thing you’re demonstrating so far is total ignorance of that which you claim to know.
MadisonConservative on September 18, 2009 at 9:42 AM
blink,
This is the last time I address you: claiming that someone is something even though there is reasonable doubt whether it is true is reckless and unnecessary. Stick to the facts, not circumstantial evidence that doesn’t prove anything.
Seixon on September 18, 2009 at 9:42 AM
Dude, Madison Conservative is the least partisan dude on here.
You have insufficient evidence to be calling him a partisan, Slick.
blink on September 18, 2009 at 9:43 AM
Depends which better describes Ron Paul.
You understand jack s**t about the Truther mindset.
MadisonConservative on September 18, 2009 at 9:44 AM
Wrong!
Beyond reasonable doubt would NEVER be the standard of proof in such a case.
It would ALWAYS be a preponderance of the evidence!!!!
Many of us have attempted to explain this to you.
blink on September 18, 2009 at 9:45 AM
OK, so Jones’ actual statements about 9/11 seem to be perplexing you guys. You have no record of him stating anything that would indicate he is a Truther. All you have is him signing a petition, that he may or may not have known contained Truther sentiments. You’ve got nothing.
A signature on a document does not prove why or how it came to be there. Deal with it.
Seixon on September 18, 2009 at 9:46 AM
Logic error. Logic error. Logic error.
First you admit that we have something. Then you say we have nothing.
Seriously, do you understand logic at all?
blink on September 18, 2009 at 9:48 AM
You’e right. All the countless hours I wasted debating with Norwegian Truthers on forums trying to show them that they were letting logic escape them probably didn’t educate me to their ways.
All I see is the same lack of logic popping up here, where people make leaps in logic and claim that one thing proves another when it clearly does not.
Seixon on September 18, 2009 at 9:48 AM
Van Jones is a self-avowed communist. That should be the main issue here, not his alleged Trutherism.
2Brave2Bscared on September 18, 2009 at 9:49 AM
He signed it. He does not deny that. We know the why and how. Ignore it at your own peril. Sheesh!
Steel on September 18, 2009 at 9:49 AM
Two of us addressed his actual statements.
blink on September 18, 2009 at 9:49 AM
“The bombs the government drops in Iraq are the bombs that blew up in New York City.”
- Van Jones in 2001
“It’s the bombs that the government has been dropping around the world that are now blowing up inside the U.S. borders.”
- Van Jones in 2002
How can Jones both believe that the US got what it deserved, and that the US committed the attack on itself? Explain.
Seixon on September 18, 2009 at 9:50 AM
I’m sure it wouldn’t surprise anyone that you didn’t learn much from that debate.
You seem incapable of learning.
blink on September 18, 2009 at 9:51 AM
It fits the pattern perfectly.
blink on September 18, 2009 at 9:52 AM
You beg the question (logical fallacy) but the problem with your question is that the concepts are not mutually exclusive.
Steel on September 18, 2009 at 9:53 AM
It seems he wasn’t one to really pursue this. He just signed the petition. His interests obviously were in a different direction.
I suppose I can see why he thinks this was a bit of a smear job. I don’t follow Media Matters’ logic that Hot Air mischaracterized the petition.
I’ve noticed that people seem unwilling to just say the opinion. They try to find some “evidence.” In doing that, they end up sounding less credible.
AnninCA on September 18, 2009 at 9:54 AM
Van Jones is a communist and anti-American racist. What else does anyone need to know? If he wasn’t radioactive, the White House would’ve done nothing to him..He got the Rev. Jeremiah Wright treatment….The only thing I’m wondering about is where is the audio or video of Big Brother Barack telling ACORN how to screw over crackers and steal gov’t money. I know something like that has to exist. He’s a racist too…..
adamsmith on September 18, 2009 at 9:56 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 Next »