Heh. You can find an excellent collection of articles and comment discussion about the ongoing meltdown at LGF here (also scan the archives for other info).

LGF has become the mirror image of dKos – dissent in the ranks and reasoned discourse that calls the site management’s judgment into question in any way is not tolerated, as you’ve discovered.

All of this is laudable, except that he has been way over doing it, IMHO. (Disclosure: I was banned from posting at LGF some time back because I disagreed, civilly with him about the Tea Party movement being a productive exercise in democracy). There is certainly a danger, and one to which many have succombed, in nut-jobbery in criticizing the Obama administration, but to defend Van Jones is well beyond the pale. This is a man who has never met a scurrilous, slacious anti-Conserative lie he didn’t love (including Trooferism). This is a man who is clearly a bigot and seeks to destroy capitalism and this country for the sake of revenge against the “white devil.” Most worrisome, I find his views to be in accord with many of our President’s closest friends and advisers fo long-standing. I find it disturbing the LGF would take the path it has on this and several other issues.

Valerie Jarrett (ex daughter in law of Vernon Jarrett) is the big promoter of Van Jones, she was thrilled to capture his genius and all that.

Tangled Webs

Also, more background on dear Van…

The Anthony (Van) Jones Scandal

i am aware of your counter-measures,and they are pedestrian at best.don’t bother trying to run…..i can simply track with eschlon via the chip implanted in your jaw…go ahead,try digging it out.

You left out the most critical part and have thereby intentionally misrepresented Madison’s point.

Madison was making an observation about the realities of faction, and government’s responsibility in light of that reality. He was NOT making a value judgment about the unequal distribution of property but rather recognizing that it is a fact of life.

To wit, in the very next sentence, which you either dishonestly left out, or which was simply omitted in the talking point memo you regurgipasted (but never verified, indicating that you’ve never even read Federalist 10), Madison GOES ON to end his paragraph and make his point [all emph. mine]:

“The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.”

Per Madison – who was obviously infinitely smarter than you – it’s government’s task to legislate IN LIGHT OF the realities imposed by faction, which will ALWAYS exist, and are sometimes caused by unequal distribution of property (among many other things).

How do we know Madison considers faction (and unequal distribution of property) a fact of life? Because a little further down, he goes on to state this fact outright:

“The inference to which we are brought is, that the CAUSES of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its EFFECTS.”

Unequal distribution of property is a CAUSE of faction, not an EFFECT. Therefore, Madison is explicitly saying EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what you’re trying to suggest by cherry-picking his quote and leaving out his actual point.

Why is it that morally adolescent, leftist ideologues can never argue a point without lying?

Nice try, nimrod.