Remember Anita Dunn who, at this moment, is employed in the White House?
Yeah, turns out she’s a fan of Chairman Mao….yep, that Chairman Mao.
Exit question: How can anyone be a fan of Chairman Mao…the guy who killed upwards of 70 million people?
h/t – Missy in the comments.
What an odd way to explain overcoming “adversity”. Why use Mao when you can use a much more close to home example. Our own fight for Freedom thru the horrific fall and winter of 1776. I wonder if any asked Washington how he could believe that a rag tag bunch of rebels could overcome the the British Empire in the face of mulitple defeats in NY and NJ?
I just cannot for the life of me figure these folks out. How do they become this way?
She’s not human, and lizards have no souls.
On the other hand, She can catch flies with that tongue, while Obama can only knock them down with his hands, so there’s that…
Souless bitch.
Pingback: The Snooper Report
she meant Wow Say Tongue, the fun loving animated character that plays on chinese television. It teaches kids great lessons in life and love and philosophy. It also teaches kids the great lessons of…. okay, there is no Wow Say Tongue.. shes just a crazy ass libtard. These people are marked by their extremism and point the finger at the rest of america with blame. Its no wonder things are so screwed up.
Is it time to start up the bus for another midnight weekend resignation?
Mao was one of the most despicable homicidal monsters to walk the face of the earth, despite being a moron, he accomplished all this.
She must be a Progressive Socialist who picked up Mao’s Little Red Book and trolled for cute things to say while being completely ignorant of who this pathological maniac Mao was, either that or she is a Maoist and there is no way she should be trusted near the White House. We can’t let this one pass by people, this is serious insanity and a chance to announce to the world who and what Mao really was!
How close is Obama to this Maoist? Maybe he agrees with her! Is Obama a Maoist? These questions need to be answered now!
Don’t think of Mao as actually killing 70 million. He just threw them under the bus for the greater good. Kind of like her lord and master Obama tends to do with the politically inconvenient.
Truly, this is the kind of moral equivalence taught in classrooms today. No one who has been to college or the university in the last quarter century or so should be surprised.
President Obama…you are who you surround yourself with – enough said.
Obama’s cabinet, his czars, his administration is full of these people. During the election I thought it was going to be bad if he won, but it is worse than I thought. This guy surrounds himself with these kind of people. They are all he knows, but he knows more of these people than I ever dreamt and he has brought them into our government. He is not the nice guy with the dreamy eyes. He is a monster.
Someone get her a class of water.. her tongue is disgusting me.
Not to worry. His Highness is in N.O. trying to gin up some riots. Guess a good riot would cover up the fact he’s a complete failure as a leader. He’ll see a roit when 50 million or so really angry citizens march on D.C. with baseball bats and pitchforks. There will be violence and deaths never seen before in the world. Dingy Harry Reid admitted the medical fiesco will cost $2 trillion, not the 800 million the lying CBO put out. Do you see a doubling of federal taxes in the near future. Maybe it’s time for the first military takeover of the country, led by Gen P.. Elections to follow, former politicians need not apply.
The irony of her speaking whilst wearing glasses, which during the height of the Cultural Revolution would have been enough to guarantee her execution, was apparently lost upon her.
Oh, that’s Anita Dunn.
I thought it might be the new comb-over czar.
I notice larry hasn’t posted on this thread. I guess she’s too “moderate” for him to comment on.
From Chairman Mao to Obamao-mao Dunn likes to lick the boots of those commie/socialist overlords. She just can’t figure out why the rest of us have a problem with her under the foot fetish. Freedom is wasted on people like her.
The Obama administration has encouraged all the creepy, slimy denizens of the dark to crawl out from under their rocks, take a seat at the head table, and do their part to destroy civilization as we know it. They hopey you likey the changey.
@newguy40 asked: “I just cannot for the life of me figure these folks out. How do they become this way?”
Well in the case of Obama he was mentored as a child by Frank Marshall Davis in Hawaii, an avowed STALINIST. Then spent 20 years in Rev. Wrights Church where Black liberationist theology goes hand in glove with Marxism.
It’s no surprise at all that Obama would surround himself with people who think like him. And we did try to warn the voters that this was in fact the case.
“while Obama can only knock them(flies) down with his hands”
- posted by Patvann
Or his ears.
Ah, yes….the “White House Watchdog.” . It’s that evil FOX News and Glenn Beck, again!!! Wonder how she’s going to spin this one away?
Interestingly enough, I don’t think she’ll be with the Administration much longer:
How do you people become this way? It seems like it would be too simple just to call you haters, but what else would it be? You just make things up. I’ve seen liberals do it too. I know it’s fun. It’s fun to exaggerate. It’s fun to make a mountain out of a mole hill. You’ve got every right to do it. Just don’t act like you’re making a serious contribution. Don’t act like you’re making things better. All you’re doing is having your little hissy fit 24/7. Be as extreme as you want to be. The taliban have nothing on you.
@Craig Travis:
How do we become “this way”"….You mean educated, informed, and knowledgeable about what is going on around us? We become that way by not becoming blinded by partisan hatred and actually seeking the truth and evaluating the facts.
I think it would be fair to say that I am a hater of Mao. Good call.
Really?
What, precisely, has been “made up” here? Those are Anita Dunn’s own words, on video.
This criticism is coming from a guy who has the list of made up Rush Limbaugh quotes proudly posted on his blog?
Irony line one.
Irony. Line one please.
Thanks for stopping by Craig Travis….you got my day started off with a hearty “point and laugh”.
Is Anita “Dunn” yet? And, Oh girl that hair! That style went out when they started using those little red books for a better purpose—-in their 1/2 billion port-a-potties.
Craig
I’m making a molehill out of a mountain. It’s the only way to handle the mountain of manure that daily sprouts forth from this adminstration and their scabby agenda. I was a hater when I was in their camp, now I’m just a dancer.
More like a sacrificial goat. That damn Beck went and foiled their plot.
What has the nastiness and big spending, out of control Obama policies wrought? If the 2012 elections were held today, 48% would not vote for Obama, 43% would, the folks are catching on:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/15/fox-news-poll-vote-elect-president-obama/
@Craig Travis:
Just make it up? Did you happen to even watch the video, if so why doesn’t it bother you that Dunn and others Obama surrounds himself with happen to be Marxists, Maoists? his Communist pal, upon exposure, was immediately thrown under the bus. Obama himself has said to judge him by who he associates with, we just aren’t supposed to find out who his unconfirmed associates are.
How do people become this way? That’s a question you should ask those running the country. Watching this administration and this Congress ruin the lives of our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren by imposing debt on them that will turn them into slaves. It will be a couple of generations that will be saddled by this spending. Speaking out, hoping to stop it is not hate.
BTW, Obama plans to dish out taxpayer money to the taliban, it worked so well with ACORN, perhaps you should find another evil to tack onto all that oppose this administrations policies. Haven’t you heard, the taliban is good. Perhaps you might want to accuse us of being more like Iranian protesters………they were the bad guys.
I Like Glen Beck!! Have Tears —will travel!! Great emotion and feeling in every show while telling the Gods Honest truth to folks who could never figure it out by themselves, and I love the way he ties things together in a common thread and exposes the real meaning hidden to the common man (or woman). Kinda like this:
Russia=Stalin=Communism=no freedom=hate=millions of deaths=mind control=Rush….Rush(ia) Limbaugh! You see the connection people? Wake up!! (where’s my Vick’s Vaporub??)
Obama=Obie=Obiewan=Ohnobewan=Oblama=ohrahma=lama dama dingdong=Bowser=
50′s music=Smoke gets in your eye’s=Glen Beck’s crying eyes….you see it? The hidden message is right there before your eyes! The smokescreen of this Administration is causing the tears in Glen Becks eyes!!
It is indeed enlightening to see him calling out Obama and his transparent attempt to destroy not only America, but the entire planet itself, as witnessed by the “Peace Prize” cover story this evil cabal has transparently awarded as a Red Herring. It is too bad that he and other people who can see this logic are only hapless victims, waiting for slaughter at the hands of brutal thug armies of Obamabots who will mercilessly kill and destroy them and sacrifice their children to the fire in honor of their demon terrorist gods. Buying more guns won’t help because the Mind control and indoctrination of our children….they will turn us in to the the Government authorities who will send the UFO’s in to scoop us up and place us in the FEMA camps Glen Beck warned us about. I am so sorry that this has happened and that all that is left to do for us in our powerless state is to hunker down and await the slaughter, while a few brave souls like Beck stand up to the tyranny. The American system has allowed this to happen only because of the evil media. Folks, this plot to destroy America is so big and involves so many people, the media, and 53% of Americans who voted are in on it too!! I spend most of my time crying about it every time I talk about it…sniff…I am starting to get used to this Vaporub though….
Trolling again moose turd?
Craig, project much? You actually came to a site full of “haters” to tell us how much you hate us? How about adressing the vid? Oh, that would require thinking and getting off your clueless “non-partisan” high horse. BTW, we do much more and have done much more than someone like you to improve this country and protect it from loons like dunn.
Filter is very active this morning.
It shows as much intelligence as moose turd.
Dunn=Done! America is done! Can’t you see the connection here people??
Mao=Maui=Hawaii=birth certificate=imposter=maui wowie=smoke=tears=Glen Beck
Glen Beck and Chairman Mao?? Oh No! I can show you the pictures all together to prove it too.
Come on Hard Right, I love Glen Beck as much as you do, he is starting to make sense, I can see why many folks embrace him now….
Bullwinkle is feeling the pressure of Truth. When insecure people can not accept that they are in-fact witnessing their mistake writ large, they lash out in a last attempt of relevancy.
Those last gasps come in many forms, and this particular person is attempting to use ridicule. Some ridicule can be focused and biting, but when it’s coming from a position of weakness, and insecurity, it inevitably comes out sounding like a frustrated 8 year old on a playground.
I prescribe pointing and laughing at the cartoon he is.
Has the Ozero whitehouse bitten off more than they can chew?
http://i979.photobucket.com/albums/ae277/RAPH6969/ussfn.jpg
moosehole = EPIC FLAIL!
Let me guess Moose, you also think Olderman makes sense as well?
C’mon Aye, Beck told us about the FEMA camps, we can trust him, and I am just jumpin’ in on the Beck bandwagon with the rest of y’all. When I see that much emotion from a grown man, makes me want to cry right along with him.
@mooseburger:
Beck told us what about the FEMA camps…do you even know?
@Craig Travis: How is it making things up when we have Anita Dunn praising MAO in HER OWN WORDS ON VIDEO?????
Do you even bother to read the content of posts before you comment???
What a leftie tool you are comrade!
Rides A Pale Horse, Don’t You know it. The “O” can’t figure it out. Beyond his intellect.
Traitors like Anita Dunn, Axlerod and others that Soros have sent need to be expunged from Our Government. Impeachment of Obama to follow. Then decades to repair the damage done.
Public Hangings and taking the Nation back. It will happen when America has 20% unemployment in the Private Sector by December. Count on it.
@Aye Chihuahua:
said the spider to the fly.
@Missy:
Mike: Not making the FEMA camp issue up
http://rightsoup.com/glenn-beck-says-fema-prisons-and-camps-are-real/
Glen was hot on it boy, that is until he realized he would be perceived as a nut case, then he dropped it like a bad habit. Or maybe the evil plotters got to him and threatened his family…..But I’m not giving up on my man Glen, tears will flow, and I wish I could give him a hug and tell him it is going to be alright, but as long as Liberals are alive and in America, we all know this is not true. As for the content of the post, yeah, like America is so screwed and the Evil Empire of Obama will be soon and swiftly be destroying all we know and love…..isn’t that the whole point of the posting, Obama and his associates hate America and want to destroy America?
FEMA=female=Anita Dunn=Obama administration=change=FEMA camps…see what I mean??!!!! Glen has made me realize how so many things are hidden right in plain sight
Old Trooper: Thank you for advocating folks to Rise up and save the Nation. Continue to hope for your public hangings, when all the evil Obama liberals are all dead, we will be safe again. Glen Beck and his followers are the only hope America has left.
@mooseburger: Mossy… I was NOT responding to your TRANSPARENT attempt to change the subject.
It should be clear from my comment above that I was responding to Craig/Transvestite.
If you want to maintain a shard of credibility I would suggest you stick to topic and not try and divert attention away from the issue which is the subject of this post.
You people seem to think you can say or do whatever you want and it’s OK, but IT IS NOT!
Stick to the topic or STFU!
Obiewan Obama! LOL Learn the ways of the farce Luke, but beware of the dark side. Many brave Jedis have dark to look into the depths of the dark side, like Jeid Barney of Frank. His is indeed a perilous and slippery path. It has made his rump raw with labor.
@moosehole:
You know, except for the fact that your source material is turned 180 degrees in the wrong direction…you’re right.
What was your point again?
In New Orleans, Obama said, “Let me tell you: I’m just getting started.”
That scares me more than the North Koreans did in 1950, and they had guns.
You say you’ll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it’s the institution
Well, you know
You better free you mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao
You ain’t going to make it with anyone anyhow
Don’t you know it’s gonna be all right
all right, all right
all right, all right, all right
all right, all right, all right
Old Trooper
I fear if we have 20% unemployment there will be blood in the streets.
mooseburger
Please get back on your meds.
We’ve been invited by “da won” to scrutinize his associations. But according to Moose, there’s only *some* we may scrutinize…
When pointing out his “associations”, he dodges those now empowered in the WH, and hauls out the above as indications he’s mainstream/moderate. Certainly those he considered above reproach. But how involved or powerful are those he offers up as proof?
Volcker is off to the side on the economic advisory council, virtually ignored. Biden was present as the Veep nominee… the guy who advocated splitting Iraq up into three. Even now, he’s virtually invisible since everytime he opens his mouth, another gaffe is uttered which the WH must reverse.
Jim Jones is Obama’s National Security Advisor. He is, of Obama’s appointees, one of the best compromises. Yet when it comes to the WH, waffling on sending support troops to McChrystal in AF/PAK, Jones instead focused not on the commander’s plea for troops, but McChrystal’s appeal to the public.
Congrats… Jones is a worthy appointee as he has learned the Obama/Axelrod art of media distraction. How disappointing. And how dangerous for our troops.
Yes, McCain was correct in assessing that Obama’s associations were troubling during his career, and even more troubling in wielding the power of the Oval Office. However Ayers… Obama’s ghost writer of his bio… was the least of our worries, as time has revealed. They are certainly closer than Obama publicly admitted, and that’s just one more indication of friends Obama’s chosen to have over the years.
Moose, your attempt at sarcasm is especially worrisome. You are among the citizens who choose to avert their eyes to the tactics of this admin, and the Euro-socialist template they choose for the “remaking” of America. Instead, like this admin, you choose to demonize the messenger and ignore the message.
Apparently, you are a quick study from your hero. This same POTUS who campaigned on overcoming the politics of demonizing opponents now uses that tactic regularly, wielded by a willing press. Yet it was only in 2008 that he decried the community organizing tool of creating discontent to achieve the end goal.
He does not confine that demonization to political electees, but to ordinary citizens and the 4th estate, the media…. at least those who don’t fall in line. i.e. talk radio and FOX News.
He’s selected hate targets to advance his various issues. For his health care campaigning… first the evil pharma, until they cut a deal with them. Then the insurance industry. There’s always an evil figure somewhere to “gin up” America against someone in order for him to make his point and influence public opinion with fear mongering and finger pointing.
Never in my lifetime have I seen a WH meddle in state politics in order to rig a health care vote (Kennedy’s MA Senate seat). Never in my lifetime have I seen a POTUS so willing to divide the nation, yet speak of harmony. And never in my lifetime have I seen a POTUS so unwilling to accept responsibility, and always casting blame elsewhere. Every policy decision is carefully crafted to include a scapegoat, and thereby preserve his image.
Just words? You bet. And to those of you who willingly close your eyes to reality, I hold you responsible to the demise of this nation of opportunity, relegating it to just another Euro-socialist nation of mediocrity. You will get no forgiveness, nor compassion from me if you help Obama achieve his dream. Frankly, I’m disgusted.
@MataHarley: I’ve made that same point, though not with as much detail, on another thread. We haven’t seen Richard Lugar or Warren Buffet or Paul Volker at Obama’s side for months. Jim Jones has been bought and paid for.
What we do see around Obama is a sea of socialists/communists/pedophile lovers and other assorted trash from the bins of discarded Marxist worship.
And let’s not forget Obama’s own ties to a Marxist Stalinist who served as his childhood mentor in Hawaii.
Birds of a feather flock together.
comment #45: Outstanding!
Aye Chewbacca: That is the whole point, Beck came out and said he COULD NOT debunk it, promised a report, then he came out later and debunked it after he had built up as much coverage from the issue as he could get before he had to backtrack. He is a genius and only goes where the facts lead him. I hope everyone in the Republican party can be just like him for as long as possible.
Mata, the message is very clear: Hate, Hate, Hate Obama. Everything about Obama, everyone around Obama, get ‘em before they destroy America. Don’t look at our past failings, or consider that Republicans lost the election for a reason. Don’t be reasonable and offer agreement where it is due, and opposition where it is warrranted. Just oppose and demonize at all costs all the time. The election campaign put on by the Republicans last summer has never stopped. It never will. Obama loves terrorists and hates America. Keep at it I say. Keep crying wolf, maybe the wolf will show up, and nobody is going to believe you when it does. All this makes Obama seem reasonable by comparison, therefore, this enables Obama more than I ever could. Glen Beck can thrive in these conditions, and when Republicans do win again someday, the road will be well paved to keep Republicans from being able to govern, even if the Voters have had their say in the matter.
Yes, the message *is* very clear, Moose. Distract, distract, distract. Watch my left hand while ignoring my right. Demonize the messenger.
I offer “reasonable” debate at every instance. What I get back from you, and those like you, is the demonization and mutilation of the facts by merely calling everyone hate mongers or racists.
Yet look who is doing the hating, Moose. Hint… walk to the nearest mirror.
@moosehole:
Again, except for the fact that what you cited and what you’re saying is completely wrong, you’re right.
Breaking but unsurprising news…. NFLPA’s DeMaurice Smith is Obama henchman.
Ah yes… Smith’s objection to Rush Limbaugh’s presence in a group attempting to purchase an NFL team is objected to by the NFLPA’s head honcho, sole based on Rush’s political views.
That would be the same Smith who worked for AG Eric Holder, and served on Obama’s transition team. It would be the same Smith who was chosen by the NFL union back in March not for his football savvy, but for his Washington connections. A position that came in handy just a couple of months later as he met with members of Congress to head off a lockout.
Yes… we have a WH and associations who do not hesitate to wield their power against their enemies… none of which, apparently, reside in Afghanistan.
Mike’s America wrote “Well in the case of Obama he was mentored as a child by Frank Marshall Davis in Hawaii, an avowed STALINIST.”
Mike may have a future in writing historical fiction, because he certainly has distorted history. Davis was not an “avowed Stalinist.” As a matter of fact, he directly criticized Stalin in his poetry.
Although Obama’s book indicates “Frank” was a family friend who offered him advice on racial issues, Obama wrote that Davis “fell short” and his views were “incurable.” Obama did not even visit Davis for three years before going to college. Obama’s book, itself, proves that Obama did not consider Davis to be a “wise and trusted counselor,” which is the definition of “mentor.” By what creative definition can Davis be considered his “mentor”?
@Mark: I’ve researched Frank Marshall Davis IN DEPTH. I suggest you do the same.
@mooseburger said: ” Keep crying wolf, maybe the wolf will show up, and nobody is going to believe you when it does. “
You mean like global warming?
Your projecting again.
Folks… notice how DESPERATE these libs are to try and change the subject?
Obama is surrounded by commies and all Parrots of the Proletariat can do is screech!
President Obamaâ�¦you are who you surround yourself with enough said thanky….
@Anton:
My Grandma and Mom always said: “Tell me who your friends are, and I’ll tell you who you are.”
Such wisdom! And you know, I never had a friend they didn’t approve of. Don’t know if thats intellect on my part or just fear! LOL
Sarge
I have studied Davis in depth, which is why I encourage you to substantiate your claims with primary source evidence, rather than speculation from bloggers like AIM’s Cliff Kincaid. For example:
“Frank Marshall Davis wrote poetry attacking Stalin by name, which appeared in his collections “I Am The American Negro” (1937) and “47th Street Poems” (1948)” (see page 48 of “The New Red Negro” at
http://books.google.com/books?id=kt5LMD-OnxoC&pg=PA48&lpg=PA48&dq=%22the+new+red+negro%22+communist+davis&source=web&ots=B-HaNJA9HW&sig=ZiOltjxuI1QwdjCAvvEC0f4NnGQ&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA48,M1)
Thanks!
@ AFSarge
My mom wasn’t so eloquent, but made the same point. She said if you play with dog crap, you’re bound to get some of it on you. She didn’t say crap though, I’m playing it safe in case the FCC diversity Czar is lurking.
About Anita Dunn’s “Chairman Mao” statement.
She was giving a commencement address. She was making (I think effectively) a useful point, and that is that a single, determined person can make a huge difference. She intentionally took two polar opposite people, to make this point: Chairman Mao and Mother Theresa. When she calls these people her favorite philosophers, she is careful to explain what she means about this. Here you have essentially a single man, with initially no resources, who, against all odds, defeated his adversaries and became the leader of a billion people. How did he do this?
I’m sure that you’ve read many of the quotes attributable to Chairman Mao.
e.g.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/mao_tsetung.html
I particularly like this one:
Mao was also a feminist before the onset of modern day feminism. You may not be a feminist, but you should be able to see how the philosophies of Mao would please a feminist like Dunn.
Yes, the various sayings of Chairman Mao also include gems like this one, which aren’t so nice.
But you could apply this last one to the Right, equally as to the Left. There is a lot of this type of spirit on this particular blog. The Left as “The Enemy.” Crushing the enemy with the hammer of one’s own philosophy. I think that either Mike or Aye wrote, on a thread some time ago, that “politics is war.” Where did this come from?
Chairman Mao
So Mike (or Aye, I don’t recall which) agrees with Chairman Mao — even quotes him. Does this make Mike (or Aye) a Communist? That’s how ridiculous is the accusation of Glenn Beck.
The man (Mao) certainly was a philosopher (unlike, for example, Adolf Hitler, to whom Glenn Beck compared Mao in asking, with exaggerated outrage, isn’t admiring the philosophy of Chairman Mao the same thing as admiring the philosophy of Adolf Hitler? — answer, no, it’s not, because Hitler was not a philosopher).
The point is that you can learn things from all sorts of people, both good people like Mother Theresa and bad people like Chairman Mao. I’m certain that the graduates who listened to Dunn’s commencement address understood this, even if Glenn Beck and other purveyors of political hate choose distortion in the pursuit of a gotcha moment.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Wow Larry… Stop spinning and sit down before you get dizzy and fall down.
When did I EVER quote Chairman Mao with admiration? Please enlighten me.
I suggest you watch the video again. This woman worships Mao. It would be an oddity if it were not so common in the ObaMAO Administration.
P.S. Is it “hate” to point out the philosophical underpinnings of this Administration? How very MAO of you to think so.
Thumb through your little red book and see if you can come up with a response. Meanwhile, ignore that stack of 70 million corpses piled up in plain view.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Hmmm….I see that Larry has shown up to purvey another myth.
Show me Larry where I have “agreed with”, or “quoted” Chairman Mao.
Show me.
Can you do that Larry….or is this another falsehood from you?
@Aye Chihuahua: Larry must have us confused with Rush Limbaugh. Surely his pals on the left can phony up a few quotes.
From Mike:
From Aye:
You are both distorting what I said (which I don’t need to repeat or explain — it’s all there in my #58. It’s what I said; it’s not what you said I said).
Aye’s comment in particular is a wonderful illustration of his entire approach to debate.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
In #60 I quoted verbatim exactly what you said in #58.
For those following at home here’s what Larry had to say (again):
Your claim seems rather clear.
So, I’ll ask you again, where have I ever quoted, or agreed with, Chairman Mao?
Where are the links Larry?
@Aye (#63): See my comments in #62.
Thank you for doubling down in #63.
Q.E.D.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
On Thursday of last week I proved you to be a lying liar through the use of your own words and a series of screenshots.
Today, I proved the same conclusion again.
Q.E.D. indeed.
@ Mike/Aye:
I did some Googling and I found what I think was the “politics is war” quotation. Turns out, it wasn’t either of you, but, rather “Hard Right” (whom I’m sure is no Maoist, even though he did quote Chairman Mao).
I do apologize for my error, although I did make it clear that I was writing from fallible memory and my point wasn’t to cast aspersions on any particular person, but simply to state that one does not need to agree with the totality of a a historical figure’s teachings to learn useful lessons from said historical figure.
CORRECTION:
Should have been: “Hard Right wrote, on a thread some time ago, that “politics is war.” So Hard Right agrees with Chairman Mao — even quotes him. Does this make Hard Right a Communist? That’s how ridiculous is the accusation of Glenn Beck.”
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
When Hard Right (or anyone else) puts forth Mao as one of their “favorite” political philosophers your point may be valid.
Until then, not so much.
Ow wow, commie davis once criticized stalin. That sure disproves all the other proof he was a commie and America hater.
A little Clozapine would do wonders for you mark.
Below is utterly outrageous. It is the grossest of gross distortions and an utter abuse of language.
You did absolutely nothing of the sort. No one supported you in your spurious charges and there was even a conservative on the thread who criticized your unfounded attacks on me.
And you are a coward to hide behind a pseudonym to make statements like that.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Larry, seriously…get some help.
Your psychophantic defense of obama is just sad, and I too agree you are dishonest when it comes to him.
Here’s something for your need to feel like a victim………you’re a commie.
Hard Right says:
de ja vu, all over again.
Q.E.D.
I need to actually get some of my day job work done today. (walking away, shaking my head in bewilderment).
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
“…. other purveyors of hate”?? Larry, it’s a dangerously esoteric philosophical argument upon which you embark.
You choose to gloss over Ms. Dunn’s admiration of Mao: the quintessential “community organizer” who, along with his dependence upon military to achieve his philosophical dreams, sent out his call for violence to peasant armies as well. His success in doing so resulted in deaths that surpassed even Stalin or Hitler’s mass murders.
Mao has been elevated to lofty positions by the left since the 60s. And their influence in glorifying his “philosophy” has gained acceptance in various bios and curriculum. Such a figure in life should not be glorified, most especially when you think of the negative impact upon humanity. This is truly an example of “means” vs “ends” debate… especially when you admire the “means” and completely discard the “ends” achieved.
If you depend upon uttered “just words” by many of the various influential monsters of history, I’m sure one can find ideological gems by most that cross boundaries of political beliefs. If one listened to many of Obama’s words…. i.e. need for health care reform… one can find consensus in the phrasing. But it is actions and use of that philosophy …. i.e. what exactly constitutes health care reform…. that should be the focus of analysis.
An ugly fact is you cannot separate Dunn’s admiration of Mao as a philosopher from admiration of his specific philosophies. There is nothing to belie that Ms. Dunn doesn’t associate herself with Maoism in her personal beliefs for a political system. And it is that which is beyond objectionable… especially as one wielding power in the US Oval Office. That you attempt to do so is desperate parsing of intent, merely to give her a “get out of jail free” Monopoly card.
Don’t you find it fascinating and obvious that one can espouse Maoism and his philosophy, but then consider it “hate speech” when called a Maoist? Why the hypersensitivity? I’ll tell you why. Because being labeled accurately is damaging to the “ends”.
I find it notable that Dunn chose to highlight Mao’s determination to overcome adverse odds (a positive) with Mother Teresa’s response to a plea to help to “find your own Calcutta”…. a kind but pointed rejection of the request for aid (a negative). By doing so, she assigns the positive “can do” attitude to a monster, and a negative, by using what may be construed as an uncaring response, from an extraordinary woman.
Indeed, I found it offensive just to hear their names contained within the same sentence that drew any positive comparisons. Attempting to bridge any gap between the two, based on actions and not “just words” is, in my opinion, virtually impossible.
As a final note, you make quite a leap yourself. When you label anyone as a “purveyor of hate” because they point out that Dunn… with her obvious political philosophical agreement with Mao in achieving social welfare and justice (both methods and ends)… you are exactly that which you accuse Beck – a purveyor of hate.
@Mata (#72)
You present a well-reasoned counterpoint to my #58.
I don’t accept what you write in the last sentence, above.
Your current commentary on Dunn, is, as I just acknowledged, well-reasoned. I don’t entirely agree, but your points are not presented in a manner to foment hatred.
I watched Beck’s youtube videos on the subject, however. They were presented in a manner to foment hatred. He was almost literally frothing at the mouth.
I don’t think that I was out of line in my accusation of Beck as being a purveyor of political hate. (n.g. Beck isn’t the only such person on the cable news scene — Maddow, Olbermann, Garofalo also meet the job description.)
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Now you are lurching from the absurd to the ridiculous.
Even after it dawns on you that your original accusations directed at AYE and me are wrong you double down and try to pin it on H.R. with some totally STUPID conflation between one of his comments and Mao.
You really should know better. I thought you were smarter than that. Oh well, I have been wrong before.
I hope you won’t mind if instead of indulge your transparent attempt to CHANGE THE SUBJECT, I return to the topic.
Dunn states that Mao is one of “the two people I turn to most.”
Instead of being ashamed by this admission that a key White House insider worships one of the worst mass murderers in history you try and change the subject.
What a pity you haven’t got more ammunition in your belt. Your efforts on this thread are pathetically weak.
Larry, I’ve watched Glenn Beck for years. Long prior to his more public exposure today. Each commentator has a style. What you construe as “frothing at the mouth” is not Beck “fomenting hate”. Beck pulls no punches, and says exactly how I feel about this administration. The Obama admin is packed to the gills with appointees and powerful czars who lean hard left towards statism/Maoism or whatever PC term you’ll accept. (One thing they are not is centrist.)
This lean to the hard left in philosophy and legislation is contrary to every founding concept of the country in which I was raised. You will have to drag me kicking, screaming, biting and fighting down the “social justice” and “welfare state” road advocated by this admin.
If that makes me a “purveyor of hate” in the eyes of anyone… and to my chagrin, even you… then so be it. By evoking that assault of opposing ideas as a political weapon, the 1st Amendment is the first casualty of our “remaking” of Obama’s America. This nation has always been divided and, assuming we still retain the right of free speech and to disagree without personal assault and repercussions, we will always be divided. Any attempt at utopian “harmony” is merely creating a nation of homogenous, subserviant citizens of the various governments in our Republic.
I have also watched/listened to Maddow, Obie, and Garafolo. I find no similarity in Beck’s delivery, as it is esconced in details as to why he has his opinion (ala his associations, which Obama, himself, has invited us to scruntinize), and not merely mischaracterization and vicious name calling. None of the trio you have mentioned has ever utilized facts in their commentary and assault on the opposition. And you can add another foaming at the mouth name to that list, Ed Schultz.
@Mike (#74)
No, I wasn’t the one to change the subject. I was responding to a point raised by Aye.
To address your point:
Dunn didn’t say that she “worshipped” Mao; she said that she “turned to him” AND to Mother Theresa for insights into ways to approach life. It’s perfectly clear that she “turns to” Mao for insights into political struggle against seemingly impossible odds — again, it’s hard to think of a recent individual who so single handedly rose from a position of total obscurity to overthrow a totalitarian regime and become the leader of a billion people. The fact that Mao, himself, becamse an even more ruthless totalitarian is not that which Dunn was holding up as an example. She was referring to the struggle for success, not what one does with success, once achieved. Her point was, again, that it’s possible to learn valuable lessons from all sorts of people, if you are willing to approach the world with an open mind. She did this by presenting the two most extreme examples one could choose.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@Mata: I NEVER said, implied, or thought that you were a “purveyor of hate.” Nor are most of the senior F/A “staff” editors. I know one when I see one, however, and Beck is one.
@Mike: My reply to #74 went to spam. Can you dig it out? Thanks.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Actually larry, the commie remark was satire. I was using your own words against you in the same way you tried to use what may have been mine against me.
Really, you have zero credibility with me when it comes to politics. The way you complement obama reeks of verbal fellatio and your blatant dishonesty whenever you defend him has made it clear you suffer from pathological denial and narcissistic tendancies. The latter part means if obama is as wonderful as you claim, you too are smart, wonderful, etc., for seeing that in him and supporting him. Therefore it’s really all about you and your ego.
Considering I agree with Beck, Larry, the only reason you can’t consider me a “purveyor of hate” is simply the difference between our deliveries of our opinions.
So let me ask you this… just what phrasing of Beck’s can you point to that is “fomenting hate”? Perhaps specifics may be in order here.
Or is this just a “feels like” kind of thing?
Ya know larry, hitler rose from nothing against overwhelming odds too. Should we turn to him for ways to approach life?
Really, when you defend scum like dunn you are absolutely repulsive.
Hard Right wrote: “Ow wow, commie davis once criticized stalin. That sure disproves all the other proof he was a commie and America hater. A little Clozapine would do wonders for you mark.”
The first point of contention was not whether he was “a commie and America hater.” The issue was Mike’s unfounded claim (#15) that he was an “avowed Stalinist.” That claim is without merit.
The second point of contention was Mike’s unfounded claim the Davis was Obama’s mentor. Obama’s book, itself, proves that Obama did not consider Davis to be a “wise and trusted counselor,” which is the definition of “mentor.” By what creative definition can Davis be considered his “mentor”?
Since Mike’s America claims to have done in depth research on Davis, perhaps either he or Hard
Right have “proof” that Davis was a commie and hated America. (Blogger speculation is not proof. Much of Davis’s writing is available online. Links to supporting evidence should be easy to provide, especially for anyone claiming to done “in-depth research” on Davis.
The only primary source evidence that he joined the CPUSA comes from Cliff Kincaid’s (“Accuracy In Media”) source University of Kansas Professor Edgar Tidwell, whom Cliff Kincaid cites as “an expert on the life and writings of Davis.” Professor Tidwell dismisses misrepresentation of Davis’s influence in one simple paragraph:
“Although my research indicates that Davis joined the CPUSA as a “closet member” during World War II, there is no evidence that he was a Stalinist, or even a Party member before WWII. Further, to those attempting to make the specious stand for the concrete, there is no evidence that he instructed Barack Obama in communist ideology. Frank Marshall Davis did NOT believe in overthrowing the USA. He was committed to what the nation professed to be. For him, communism was primarily an intellectual vehicle to achieve a political end-a possible tool for gaining the constitutional freedoms of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for ALL Americans.”
BTW: As a retired Air Force Intelligence Officer with specific training in Deception Analysis by the C.I.A. in 1989, I am researching political disinformation. I am familiar with disinformation campaigns, including Pope Gregory’s misrepresentation of Mary Magdalene, Russian and German misrepresentation of Judaism, Operation Fortitude protecting the D-Day invasion, Operation Left Hook protecting the coalition drive into Kuwait, and the misrepresentation of the Iraqi threat this century. This disinformation campaign fits the pattern epitomized by “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” where a target is smeared through deliberate misrepresentation. Relying on unsubstantiated claims of mentorship to implicate Obama makes no more sense than relying on Curveball’s unsubstantiated claims of mobile weapons labs to implicate Iraq.
“Truth is generally the best vindication against slander.” – Abraham Lincoln
@Mata:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiBDpL2dExY
Yes — “feels like”
Or, to put it another way, I know it when I see it.
The Glenn Becks of the world are vexations to the spirit.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: You just keep digging the hole deeper don’t you.
Your lame and transparent attempt to take the focus off what Dunn said and what so many Obama Admin types believe has been exposed.
You really should know better than to continue to draw attention to this issue by such obvious distractions (Isn’t that Obama’s favorite excuse “distractions?)
That Kool Aid you are drinking must be powerful stuff. Too bad you can’t get the Independents, Seniors and women voters who are fleeing from Obama in droves to sip it along with you.
@Hard Right (#78):
Can I ask you a serious question?
Why can you not simply debate issues without layering on so much in the way of personal vituperation? I’m just trying to understand something, here, in the spirit of trying to learn something from people with whom I disagree.
Do you feel that the language in #78 is really helpful — to anyone? In what way is it helpful?
There are now 82 comments on this thread. Virtually all of them are the genre of echo chamber feeding the echo chamber. I was trying to interject a modicum of thoughtful debate. Mata seized my comments by the throat and offered compelling counterpoints. She didn’t treat me with kid gloves, but neither did she find it necessary to resort to the most personal forms of verbal attack.
On the other hand, perhaps Mata views me as being a guest on her blog (she being one of the editors). Bill Maher is one of those political hate fomenters who, at least, treats his own guests with respect. You and I are are simply visitors, so, perhaps, it’s OK to sling personal mud at that level. I’m just musing out loud, in real time. On one hand — on the other hand.
But I think that good manners are good manners, and I’m sufficiently old fashioned to appreciate good manners from a host.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@mata (#75):
Once again, it depends on where one’s own personal philosophy is, on the political spectrum.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped1008chapmanoct08,0,6061831.column
The above column (by a writer I’d consider to be a moderate — his columns are frequently run by the conservative/libertarian Orange County Register, which NEVER runs leftist op-ed columns), makes the point that Obama’s so-called socialist leanings are grossly exaggerated.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Mark #81, it’s nice that you… Mark Davis, son of Frank Marshall Davis.. are again paying us a visit. I have not forgotten our forum conversations in an August 2008 thread. And what rang the bell of association was not only your career comments, but your reference again to Tidwell’s article, and your MyBarackObama blogpost on the same subject.
The link to our prior conversations will, perhaps, remind you of our previous encounter about this Tidwell exoneration, as you see it, of your father’s political beliefs.
As you have again highlighted Mr. Tidwell’s paragraph here, I will again repeat what I responded to you back then…
In the interest of balance, your response to me stated that it was likely your father viewed his membership in the Communist Party as a tool, citing “The New Red Negro”.
As I said to you then, from what I read of your father, I didn’t throw him into the 100% “radical” or “communist” class. However I do include him in the “socialist/Marxism” class.
One can spend much time debating the nuances separating Stalin and Karl Marx political philosophies. But what most of us can agree upon is that neither of them are particularly well suited to the founding concepts of the USA. Six of one, half dozen of the other… neither are guidelines for this nation, unless you are interested in “remaking” it in their philosophical, statist image.
Again I will say it was ironic his idea of achieving “constitutional” freedoms for black America was not to implement civil rights legislation, but to apply a socialist agenda – “every one is equal”. Socialism/Marxism, or Communism, does not lift up citizens. It lowers some, slightly raises others so that individuality becomes muddy, and excellence becomes out of favor, or prohibited and impossible.
And even more ironic that a Communist govt, assuming as a CPUSA member he would have been okay with that, would have probably made sure his poetry never made it to the masses.
The days of your father are entirely different than opportunities for black Americans today. While you may apply reasoning to justify the method your father chose to achieve civil rights in his time, those same methods are not acceptable by Obama in today’s era of civil rights. For in fact, a swing towards socialism and equality, as espoused by Marx, would result in the decline of enrichment and rewards enjoyed by many a successful black American.
I will also nitpick with your “mentor” comment: ala By what creative definition can Davis be considered his “mentor”?
The answer to that is, quite simply, Merriam Webster’s definition. I don’t think it can be effectively argued that your father was not a friend, trusted counselor or guide to a young Obama, sans his own father. So tho Mike’sA can speak for himself, I’d say it’s not farfetched to term him as a mentor and influence in Obama’s life.
But I do have to say, I always enjoy when you jump into the fray INRE your father’s defense since I do think you bring a balance to the myths when you put it into the perspective of your father’s era. But that dog don’t bark in 2009.
Larry #85… ’tis nice of you to reply to the “centrist” remark. However, you and I are standing on opposite sides of a wall. Your side is painted blue, mine is green. Your concept of “centrist” doesn’t come close to resembling mine, and you’ll always see blue when I always see green. From our perspective, both are “true”.
It’s rather like your response when I asked you just what you found to be “fomenting hate” in Beck’s words, and you opted for door #3… it’s a “feels like” judgment call.
I figured we’ve run the gamut on the issue. I can’t debate someone’s opinion based on emotions and “feels like” observations. Nor can I argue with someone who sees the center from the left stance, while I see the center from my right.
Acknowledged
LW/HB
Thanks for your reply MataHarley. I am not contesting the truth, but only refuting the lies, concerning my father. Especially heinous are the flagrant falsehoods from posters like Mike’s America, who portray him as an avowed Stalinist (or worse). Upon reviewing the discussion from last year (thanks for the links), I find that Mike’s America posted (#51)
Now, however, Mike’s America claims he was an “avowed Stalinist.” Perhaps Mike’s America can explain this shift.
You may be interested in this cordial exchange between myself and Max Friedman, Cliff Kincaid’s researcher: http://pajamasmedia.com/phyllischesler/2009/05/31/judge-sonia-sotomayor-and-singing-sensation-susan-boyle/#comment-13017. Only the last group of comments pertain to this situation. Please note that Max agreed to follow through with Cliff Kincaid regarding the specific misrepresentation I had identified in June. Not a peep was heard from him since then.
Frank Marshall Davis was primarily a civil rights activist. I invite anyone to provide any primary source evidence (i.e., his writing) that he was devoted to Marxism/socialism, or even believed in collectivism. The CPUSA was merely a means for publication, that’s all, since only the CPUSA provided institutional support for African American writers at that time.
For those who question whether anyone would join the CPUSA without internalizing collectivist values, examples abound in more recent developments. Russians and Chinese joined their respective Communist parties because membership was important to professional advancement. Mikhail Gorbachev rejected these values in dismantling the Soviet Union. Leaders of the PRC’s capitalist boom are nevertheless pro forma Party members. According to CNBC’s “The People’s Republic of Profit,” the PRC now has over 100 billionaires – second only to the United States. Some Communist Party members are VERY successful capitalists!
Even today people join some organizations, such as churches and the YMCA, without internalizing their core values because membership has its advantages. I believe everyone will agree that many so-called “Christians” have not internalized Christian values. Some could argue that Stalinism perverted the core values of Marxism, just as the Spanish Inquisition and pedophile priests perverted the core values of Christianity.
Contrary to the fraudulent memes circulated throughout the blogosphere regarding Davis, University of Kansas Professor Edgar Tidwell, cited by AIM’s Cliff Kincaid as an expert on the life and writings of Davis, explains that THESE were the “radical” goals of Frank Marshall Davis:
(1) integration of armed forces
(2) integration of AFL and CIO
(3) fair wages and other benefits for workers
(4) general dismantling of all laws supporting racial segregation
(5) end to laws supporting anti-Semitism
(6) end to atomic warfare
(7) rights for soldiers in combat zones to vote in national elections
(8) support for Fair Employment Practices Act
(9) support for a broad United Nations (not just US and Great Britain forming a world power union)
(10) end to restrictive covenants in real estate
You will likely find that these have mostly been transformed from “radical” goals of the 1940s into mainstream 21st century standards. Frank Marshall Davis was not out of line. He was just ahead of his time.
Lastly, you wrote
As Obama himself said Davis “fell short” and his views were “incurable,” what evidence is there that Obama trusted his counsel? With empirical evidence against it, and mere speculation for it, any objective analysis would have to “follow the evidence,” as they say on CSI.
Thanks for your consideration.
“Have patience awhile; slanders are not long-lived. Truth is the child of time; erelong she shall appear to vindicate thee.” – Immanuel Kant
@Mark: I was wrong earlier Mark. Davis is a Stalinist and you can hide behind all the warm and fuzzy deceptions of which your fellow communists are expert but it won’t alter the fact.
Your definition of a civil rights activist would also cover George Wallace.
Methinks thou dost protest too much!
P.S. Who is YOUR #1 hero: Mao or Che Guevara?
Mike’s America: Since he criticized Stalin in writing, where is your evidence that he was an “avowed Stalinist”? Where and when did he make any such “vow”? Methinks you are living in Right Wing Fantasyland (see http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/Kaleokualoha/gG59cf)
“The men the American public admire most extravagantly are the most daring
liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the
truth.” – H. L. Mencken (1880 – 1956)
Mark, I find it nigh on impossible to pass judgment on your father’s chosen methods of achieving civil rights. Quite frankly it was an era that few of us could fathom the goin’s on INRE race relations. Were I to live in times where I was so oppressed (and it’s not out of the question I may yet live see those in my lifetime), I’m quite sure that history (were I important enough to be recorded history as a mere foot soldier…) may classify my actions as “radical” in response. It’s difficult to view history without experiencing those times yourself.
I think there is merit in what you say that, at the time, the Communist Party offered your dad a public forum not accessible to him in those times. So let me say this. Perhaps it’s inappropriate of me to assume that your dad’s champion… Tidwell, in this case… thought he was doing your dad a favor when he said that Frank believed communism was the means to achieve civil rights. After all, the man is not here to speak for himself, nor note the changes in our society. But then, that’s all we have to go on, yes?
I’m not sure you could answer this question (without it being one of those tongue in cheek “are you still beating your wife” moments)… but I guess your father’s speculative legacy might be this: in those days, would he accept a communist society as the answer to civil rights even today, totally discarding his capitalist/excellence beliefs you say he held?
Who can answer this, but your father himself? No one. But by his chosen associations, that is the legacy he leaves.
Personally, I have long discarded your Dad as a talking point or “association” worthy of bringing up to evaluate Obama’s performance. First of all because it was a different time and circumstance. Second, because he is not here to speak for himself with current societal changes.
But most especially since there is so much that Obama has done – all by himself – that doesn’t require a linkage to your father using the worst portrayal. Obama’s own action reinforces my opinion of him as the architect to destroy this nation as it was founded.
Nor would I expect you to accurately predict how your father would approve/disapprove of a black American in the WH, actively thwarting black Americans’ successes (along with other races) in order to elevate others. If your father was genuinely a capitalist, I can’t believe he would approve of the current events. I think I… and even more you… would love to see upon what side he would land. Would he stand with Charles Payne on economics? A Ward Connerly on affirmative action? Walter Williams, George Schuyler or Thomas Sowell? Ah… if we could only see parallel universes.
I suspect that here, you and I will agree to disagree… your father aside. This is assuming that, over 8 months into his term, you agree with Obama’s economic decisions. Considering your career background, I will leave your opinions of his foreign policy as a “don’t ask, don’t tell” moment.
Just in case Mike’s America is trying the Humpty Dumpty gambit of making up his own definitions, according to dictionary.com “avowed” means “acknowledged; declared: an avowed enemy.” A “Stalinist” is “an advocate or supporter of Stalin or Stalinism.” Therefore, an “avowed Stalinist” is an acknowledged or declared advocate or supported of Stalin or Stalinism.
The Humpty Dumpty gambit was highlighted in the story of Alice’s adventures in “Through The Looking-Glass,”
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone. “It means just what I choose it to mean – neither more or less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – that’s all.”
Lewis Carroll
English author & recreational mathematician (1832 – 1898)
“I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. That is why right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant.”
– Martin Luther King Jr. (1929 – 1968)
The above interchanges between MataHarley and “Mark” are a jaw-dropping example of blogosphere discourse at its very best. Thanks to both of you. – Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
MataHarley,
I am confident that after the 1950s, my father recognized the obscene truth of Soviet Socialism – and by extension any other collectivist society outside a small farming commune. He once said that he worked with communists just as he would work with the devil himself to defeat Jim Crow.
I personally believe that the era of racial preferences is over. Everyone today should be judged exclusively on the content of their character. While I am unqualified to judge whether Obama’s actions to recover from the recession are the best, honest people will always tend to disagree on economic policy.
My greatest disagreement with him is on his human/civil rights record since taking office.
“The way to combat noxious ideas is with other ideas. The way to combat falsehoods is with truth.” – William O. Douglas
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Larry…. You need a hankie. I can see your brown nose from here.
@Mark: I’ve learned my lesson. I saw firsthand today how Larry W. can just make stuff up about me that I never said. Over the past few months I’ve seen the same thing happen time and time again, most recently with the racist attacks on Rush Limbaugh.
Apparently, if those kinds of assaults on the truth are good enough for your side I might as well engage in the tactic too.
But again, here we are getting DISTRACTED (to use Obama’s favorite word) which is exactly what you and Larry are trying to do to take the focus off the Mao loving Ann Dunn.
Sorry pal, I’ve allowed you to get away with that for too long. Do you have a comment to make which is ON TOPIC?
Sorry, Mike’s America, but I could care less about Anita Dunn. My blogosphere attention is focused almost exclusively on refuting the lies concerning my father, such as your “avowed Stalinist” fabrication.
@Mark shared. . .
“The men the American public admire most extravagantly are the most daring
liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the
truth.” – H. L. Mencken (1880 – 1956)
——-
If this is so true — why is there not a memorial to Benedict Arnold in DC?
Because England lost.
@Mark:
I’m not quite clear what your bone of contention is here.
Is it true or false that Davis was a member of the CPUSA?
Is it true or false that he plead the 5th in testimony before the US Congress when asked about his membership in the CPUSA?
Is it true or false that the NAACP rejected Davis because of his radical views?
Seems to me that “Stalinist” or garden variety “Communist” is a difference without distinction.
@Mark wrote — Because england lost
—-
Are you altering the 19th century quote you offered? I did not see a footnote with the puissant thought.
@Mike:
You are the one changing focus. My posts have squarely addressed the Ann Dunn issue; the only time I got off topic was to answer/address Aye’s issue. And I didn’t “make” anything “up.” I accurately recalled a relevant comment on F/A by a very conservative discussant who was no Mao lover, but who quoted Mao, none-the-less. I was clear in saying that I “thought” I recalled this was you (or Aye), but made it clear that this was simply from memory, which is, of course, fallible. I then took a break from my workday — solely to do the Google research, identified the correct (conservative) commentator, and posted the correction.
Other than that, I had several posts, which squarely addressed the Ann Dunn issue. You (and Aye and Hard Right) did not address the specific points I made — instead you simply responded with dismissive (and often personal) insults. I debated seriously. You simply hurled epithets.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Gee, Aye Chihuahua, I thought I had made myself clear. I am refuting the lies, such as the “avowed Stalinist” claim. As far as I know, it is true that he was a member of the CPUSA and that he pleaded the fifth. I have seen no evidence that the NAACP rejected Davis because of his radical views, although it is undoubtedly true that AIM lied about his involvement with the Honolulu NAACP in 1949 (see proof at http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/Kaleokualoha/gG5kN7). These, however, were not points of contention in this discussion.
Saying “Seems to me that “Stalinist” or garden variety “Communist” is a difference without distinction” is like saying “seems to be that “Jehovah’s Witness” or garden variety “Christian” is a difference without a distinction. There are many different types of “communists” – some of which do not even believe in collectivism – just as there are many types of Christians, some of whom do not even believe in the cross. Even within the collectivist group, there are many that are not Stalinists, because they reject the totalitarian abuses of Stalinist Russia. Stalinism is only one subset of communism, just as Jehovah’s Witness is only one subset of Christianity. As outlined in post #89, some people are communists in name only.
Frank Marshall Davis rejected collectivism. He was a capitalist. He owned two paper companies, and sold advertising specialties, in Hawaii. He joined the CPUSA because of the professional and social opportunities it presented. He joined the CPUSA during WWII, just as the United States joined the Soviet Union during WWII, not because they shared the delusion of a communist utopia. Each was a marriage of convenience. He joined because membership had its privileges, such as professional and social opportunities.
American Voter: I believe that was a 20th century quote. If England had won, Loyalists such as Arnold would have been honored and rebels disgraced.
American Voter, perhaps I’m missing something you may be picking up on. But feel free to enlighten me… genuinely.
Mencken… source of the quote.. had great disdain for FDR. A hero of the American left and father of the “New Deal”. He oft referred to him as “the Führer”.
Further, it was also Mencken who said: Socialism is simply the degenerate capitalism of bankrupt capitalists. Its one genuine object is to get more money for its professors.
There’s a few other Mencken gems that indicate he was more libertarian in his beliefs philosophically. i.e. from his 1949 Chrestomathy compilation discussing the “inner nature” of government:
Or, as he said in the late 20s in the Notes of Democracy:
Laughably, the bone-head, wannabe journalist known as Lew Rockwell tried to attribute that quote to Mencken with a headline stating “H. L. Mencken on the Bush Regime” back in February 2008.
Of course the fly in the ointment is that Mencken died in Jan 1956.. when Dubya was but 10 years old. LOL Nice try, Rockwell. But then, as we can see, math is not the forte of liberal/progressives.
So I guess I’m missing the tie between the Mencken quote and some sort of elevation of Benedict Arnold here in your mind, unless you’re using the current liberal/progressives mischaracterization of Mencken.
And I don’t find anything that indicates Mencken was speaking of Arnold with that quotation. So what’s the point of the question, from your viewpoint?
@Mark:
Your example of a supposed “variety” of Christians, while somewhat clever, falls short of reality. The Scriptures are clear that “Those who do not believe in the Cross cannot be disciples of Christ” (Luke 14:27). Likewise, those that deny the divinity of Christ are not Christians either.
So, there is only one group of Christians.
Examples please.
I see the Obama distraction machine remains ramped up to full power.
Mark: I really don’t care whether your father was a Stalinist or not. That’s not the topic of this post.
Your attempt to steer this discussion away from the point of the post is transparent.
And of course Larry is only too happy to help in this commie coverup.
Aye Chihuahua,
Examples? Virtually every communist critic of Stalin is an example. Let’s start with Kruschchev
in 1956:
“1956: Khrushchev lashes out at Stalin
The Soviet leader, Nikita Khrushchev, has denounced Joseph Stalin as a brutal despot.
In a sensational speech to the 20th Congress of the Communist Party Mr Khrushchev painted a graphic picture of a regime of “suspicion, fear, and terror” built up under the former dictator who died three years ago. He said he wanted to break the “Stalin cult” that has held Soviet citizens in its thrall for 30 years.” (See http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/25/newsid_2703000/2703581.stm)
We can also add the millions of Chinese (and other) communists who embraced capitalism in lieu of collectivism in the past twenty years.
Also: “So, there is only one group of Christians”? I believe the countless victims from Catholic-Protestant conflict during the past centuries would disagree with you. Grand Inquisitor Torquemada would have probably wanted to discuss the issue with you in greater detail!
“I really don’t care whether your father was a Stalinist or not. That’s not the topic of this post.”
Then why the lie?
@Mark: DISTRACTION!
@Mata Harley
I was taking the quote at face value. . .’The men the American public admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars’. . .I used an example of a famous, daring liar Benedict Arnold. That was all. . .no hidden meaning. . .another famous, daring liar? Bernie Madoff.
Secondly, I was also looking at the era in which Mencken lived. This quote does not necessarily, reflect contemporary Americans living in the age of internet/UTube. Liars can be outed/discredited within minutes so I do not subscribe to a wholesale buy-in to Mencken’s philosophical thought for 2009 political America.
ok. the most famous daring liar. That part I get. However the American public does *not* admire Benedict Arnold, and he is the slang for “traitor”. Neither is Bernie Madoff admired by the American public.
Thereby your comment still eludes me… Know what I mean? And Mark’s response made sense that, had the British retained control of Revolutionary America, there may have been a statue of Benedict Arnold in DC.
Still ‘fused here, guy. Mencken is pretty much Ayn Rand/libertarian, anti-big govt for his era. The New Deal era pretty much killed his appeal since he was so vocal about the govt expansion. In this respect, his Great Depression older adult life is *very* relevant (at least to my political leanings) in 2009.
BTW, Mencken lived from the late 1800s to 1956. He wasn’t in Benedict Arnold’s era. However what I *could* take away from Mencken’s quote is the epitome of Obama… “most admired”… “daring liar”. Perhaps more current events/ prescient than you give credit for, eh?
Mark #89. So sorry I didn’ address this comment sooner… if you’re still out there.
Let me say this emphatically… just in case you did not get this from my above comments about your father’s era, and today. While I can see your dad making more extreme contacts in his era, there is no way in Hades I can justify that from our privileged POTUS today.
The fact that Obama “says” your father “fell short” of being a trusted counsel means nothing from a man who lives daily on political expediency for his every waking moment.
I give your consideration for your father, your exposure to him intimately, and his time and place in our country. Obama? No pass…. And, in fact, I believe Obama just added your father under the bus, with the other sundry expendable bodies.
“The men the American public admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth.”
Not every quote conveniently transcends time and situation. . .thus my challenge . . but apparently I may not challenge.
OK MataHarley. . .so in 2009. . .
from what I have read from your responses, I am to believe. . .
1) I may not challenge the wholesale use of this quote or I am affronting Mencken — even
though his words rang true to the particular situation he was referring. (I do not agree
that it fits with Anita Dunn, the White House vs Fox News. . .in large part because people
have more facts/audio/video, at their instant need)
2) This quote now wholesale applies to 100% of all Americans for any topic,
transcending time — and topic — and the internet age.
3) As an American, I cannot decide who I admire — for myself? I must embrace daring
liars and cannot have my own opinions on a person’s integrity or message?
Therefore as I am an American and Obama is one of the most daring liars — at least in my lifetime — I should embrace him because of a decades old quote. . .I will toss out my Conservative values tomorrow, never question anything, sing songs of Chairman Maobama, and block Fox News from my cable selection. So that will make me fit conveniently into the grove of the quote?
I thought this thread was about Anita Dunn, the White House PR war, and Fox News. I have been dismayed with the daring liar Barrack Obama for over a decade and thankfully, the polls and Fox News ratings show that I am in growing company.
I remained a conservative living in downtown Chicago after 10 years — as I think for myself.
Not all quotations, as profound as they may have been at the time uttered, transcend time and situation.
oh for crissakes, American Voter… what the hell are you talking about? I’m still trying to figure out why you would attribute an anti-goverment libertarian’s saying to Benedict Arnold… who was pro-England in the Revolution (and most certainly not anti-government… ) and I can’t get a cogent answer. No judgment call… just trying to sort out out your train of thought.
I have to say… your clarification only made it worse, compounded by some pouting ‘tude.
I’m not sure how you interpreted the quote, or why you seemed to attribute that to “the situation” (as opposed to Mark’s other quotes ending his comments??) to Benedict Arnold. But I sure can tell you… it’s the opposite of how I saw it.
Since I can’t make heads of tails of your “wounded to the quick” response about challenging, maybe it will help if I offer up a more simplified translation and show you how I think it relates quite well to Obama.
Now the only way I can see the case you’re trying to make is maybe you’re thinking mirror opposite.. that the “public admires most” the conservative voices in today’s time. In which case, I need some of whatever you’re taking. Other than that, anti-big government are the voices Mencken (an anti-big government activist) was saying are the most detested…. both in his FDR era and our time today. Therefore it transcends time and situation perfectly.
I don’t swear to make a statement. . . I was raised differently.
No ‘tude here — I see it more on your part when someone disagrees with you — I don’t care to get another lecture — yes, you are HIGHLY intelligent BUT you do not have all the answers. Step down from your elitist intellect once in awhile and try to see other points. . .from the mainstream person’s point of view.
Also, the difference in eras is the electronic instant information. . .which makes a difference in peoples’ opinions on truthfulness. If it made no difference — why is the FCC gearing up for net neutrality on Thursday — more control. People can lie — but they don’t get away with it forever otherwise Obama would still be in the 70s in poll ratings. Why does China control their internet access? Why are Fox News’ rating going up and BHO’s going down?
This could all change — with total media control, we would be back to an FDR situation with no discernable way to determine truthfulness.
It is late, I think you are very, very smart and highly knowledgeable on history and current events — but not always the supreme authority in philosophical thinking.
By the way — Benedict Arnold was just used as an example of absurdity — The quote offered all americans revering the liar. . .no they don’t, not all.
I am due to go on duty in a few minutes — so you win, you are an author, this is your site and there is no difference in 2009 to the era of FDR, and all Americans think alike…got it!
No larry, I did not quote mao. It’s just more dishonesty on your part. It’s like saying because mao once said the word car, I was quoting him when I said car. The fact is I actually wasn’t aware of what mao had said as murderous communist thugs aren’t my inspiration. Way to show we are right about you lying for obama and really, yourself.
Ah yes, benevolent larry came here to save us partisan zombies from ourselves. Why, we must disagree with him because we just don’t think. Us close minded ideological bigots just need to be shown the light by someone of superior intellect or reasoning skills.
Larry, you have just proven what I said. This really all about you and your ego. Your problem with us is that we refuse to join you in your fantasy world and you cannot deal with that.
You can’t even be honest with yourself about your views.
You claimed to be more fiscally conserrvative than Conservatives. Yet you support health reform that will create monster deficits and destroy the economy.
You excuse obama’s spending by blaming it on Bush.
You can’t even admit that obama’s picks aren’t moderate. You try to play the subjectivity game.
You defend dunn because you are defending obama and by extension yourself. Just because you cannot see that doesn’t mean I can’t.
There is no defending what she said and your eforts to do so ARE narcissistic and disgusting.
@Hard Right:
I do believe that Hitler is quoted in the Holocaust Museum….does that mean that the people who established and operate the museum agree with Hitler?
No, not so much.
Of course, Beck’s criticism of Dunn was not related to her quoting Mao…his well placed criticism of her was related to Dunn’s selection of Mao as one of her “favorite” philosophers…one that she returns to over and over.
Wait until you hear the clip of the new manufacturing czar that was released today. As difficult as it is to believe, there’s a guy in the White House who is indeed quoting Mao…and agreeing with him about the results that can be achieved at the end of the barrel of a gun.
This guy, Ron Bloom, doesn’t believe in the free market and openly admits it, calling the free market a “joke”.
Unbelievable this group in the White House….is there a “normal” one in the bunch?
Absolutely. Un. Believable.
Yet the spinning, the knee padded gyrations, and the intellectually dishonest spittle flecked defenses will continue.
How many radicals does it take to make a pattern?
@American Voter: Don’t go away mad and PLEASE do not go away. Not sure what you are Mata are squabbling about but to quote Rodney King “Can’t we all just get along?”
I always enjoy your comments and that’s not because I agree with them but it helps.
@Aye Chihuahua:
Is this the clip you were looking for?
@Mike’s America:
Yes, that’s the one.
They aren’t moderates but larry wants to play the definition of “is” game.
Radical marxists that hate America are now in charge. Lovely.
Pingback: Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » White House Declares War
Well, Mike’s A… welcome to the club INRE what AV and I are “squabbling” about. To this moment, I still haven’t a clue what AV meant about Benedict Arnold in relation a quote about dissenters of big government being detested. Which, frankly, describes today’s times quite well. The liars are Obama, Dunn, etc. Those violently detested are the opposition.
Twice I nicely requested some clarification of the bizarre analogy in comments #104 and again in #111, when the explanation in #110 made not a lick of sense. After all, neither Benedict Arnold or Madoff were “extravagantly” admired, neither were opposing big government, and Mencken did not live in the times as either of those men (ala AV: I was also looking at the era in which Mencken lived.)
I then get some defensive slap with his/her snippy comment and ‘tude in #113, as if I’m somehow restricting his freedom of speech and having opinions. Huh? It then follows up with more personal insults in #115.
Color me very baffled. Seems to be “a failure to communicate” here. Of course, that just must be entirely my fault. What the hey…
No biggie. I’ll just have to accept that whatever train of thought there was INRE Mencken’s quote will just forever elude me. And at this point, I don’t give a whit what AV meant. May not have been raised to swear, but certainly has no problems slinging personal mud at me when the communications line go south. Just another heads up for me that there are some with whom we share similar opinons, but just can’t seem to carry on a sensible cyber conversation.
@ Hard Right, who said:
Actually, Hard Right, you DID quote Mao. You just didn’t know that you quoted Mao. Go to a familiar quotation source and look up “politics is war,” and Mao is credited as being the author. The fact that you apparently didn’t know this doesn’t change what you did.
Let’s look at several other Mao quotes:
And so on.
Now, let’s say that your occupation is that of “professional political strategist.” Mao, as Dunn noted in her commencement speech, went from being a nobody to overthrowing a despotic regime and becoming the leader of a country of a billion people. By any definition, he is one of the most master political strategists of all time. Mao is generally viewed as being a political genius but a military klutz.
Once again, Dunn’s point is that you can learn from everyone, and she intentionally chose polar opposites on the scale of human goodness. She clearly wasn’t holding up Mao as an example of human goodness, she was holding him up as one of the greatest political philosophers of all time. Which he clearly is.
At the US Army War college, they study Ho Chi Minh, who was the master military strategist of his particular genre.
Republicans don’t realize it, perhaps, but today’s political tactics (e.g. see above) are straight out of the Chairman Mao playbook. This goes for Republicans as well as Democrats. You guys are waging political war — in fact, you are waging political guerilla war. You despise the “enemy” strategically, but you take him seriously (at least you SHOULD take him seriously) tactically. One of your weaknesses is that you are unwilling to let different schools of thought contend. You suffer from a surfeit of certitude, and this threatens to be your downfall.
You don’t realize it, but you would be vastly better off engaging me (e.g. in the style of Mata and Wordsmith) as opposed to simply throwing crude insults my way.
Hard says that I’m here because of my “ego.” Well, I do have an ego, but that’s not the primary reason I’m here. I could go around knocking on doors and passing out leaflets. I have done that in the past, as when I wanted to convince the Huntington Beach City Council to build a youth sports complex. Or I could contribute money to go to political advertising. I’ve done only a little of the latter, choosing to invest, instead, in the education of my children and in the furtherance of my small business. Instead, I like discussing politics on the Internet, where there are 10 lurkers for every participant, and where it’s the lurkers who are potentially up for grabs, persuasion-wise. I’ll never convince anyone like Mike, or Aye, or Hard, or even Mata, Wordsmith, Scott, or the other polite conservatives who write on this blog. But I just might get the odd silent reader to view both sides of a given issue more equally, and this makes me feel as if I am participating in our political system.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
1) I did not quote mao. Stop lying. You know I wasn’t quoting him.
2) You are a narcissist. Your latest post proves it. You are soooo enlightened and balanced you are going to save those who are ignorant from us partisans.
3) Stop trying to make excuses for dunn/obama. She clearly looks to a mass murderer for guidance. The fact you even defend that says volumes about you.
4) Seek mental help. You have next to no understanding of yourself. In fact I understand you better than you do. You haven’t a clue why you worship obama despite having been told multiple times. Liberalism is a mental illness and yes, you are a liberal.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Heh.
@Mike’s America:
“WE” kinda believe Mao” Who’s he speaking for?
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: I’m the veteran of a number of statewide campaigns and also worked in the White House Office of Political Affairs during a presidential campaign. I can’t recall ONE “professional political strategist” in all that time who ever quoted Mao, let alone made a speech with him as a centerpiece.
I do recall a great many conservatives citing Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson, John Locke, Samuel Adams and a host of other founding fathers, patriots and political philosophers.
Your transparent attempt to sweep the Mao Mania in Obama land under the rug is LAUGHABLE!
@Missy: He’s not speaking for me. He IS speaking for Obama and his cronies.
Has anyone found a good link with all the Obama commie lovers yet?
I did find this at American Thinker but wonder if there isn’t a better one?
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/ship_of_fools_obamas_intimates.html
@Mike, Aye, Hard
I dutifully read your replies (#123,124,126)
From my perspective, I’ve said all I wish or need to say on this.
- Larry w
Finally, the digging has ceased.
Apologies, guys. One more “dig:”
@Mike:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYJ15vbo15w&feature=player_embedded
Larry W/HB
Pingback: Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » Another Mao Lover in the White House?
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Oh goodie for you Larry… Here I thought you had picked up your marbles and headed home after being thoroughly discredited from start to finish but you saved the best for last.
Had to look pretty long and hard for that one didn’t you? On the other hand, I could do a post a day on the connections between Obama Admin officials and commies.
You really do surprise me sometimes. I would think you are smart enough to know when it would be better to stay quiet rather than destroy what little credibility you have left.
How anyone can write a Mike/Aye/Hard Right response to a debate opponent (Choose one from each category):
You are a (liberal/Leftist/Socialist/Marxist/Communist). This is just another one of your (falsehoods/fabrications/lies). You have been proven to be (wrong/delusional/without credibility/drinking too much Kool Aid, narcissistic, in need of psychotherapy). Your comments were (laughable, demented, whining, whacko).
Sincerely, (Mike, Aye, Hard Right)
Credibility? Mike’s America’s flagrant lie about Davis being an “avowed Stalinist,” coupled with his questionable assertion of having researched Davis “in depth,” and followed by his refusal to explain himself, clearly reflect his lack of integrity.
@Mike’s America –
Thanks but I am not mad — I go through more grief while at workplace in planning meetings (they have nothing on political debate forums) and ESPECIALLY debating family at Thanksgiving/Christmas as I am sure many ‘enjoy’ — I was on duty last night and came home and slept. You can’t get rid of me that easily. (Although, at a social gathering a month ago, I sure heard a lot of backpeddling and “maybe I was wrong, he is not governing as a centrist” — from Obama voters)
I was taught not to swear. I was raised to question everything. I was educated that not all of men’s words (quotes) transcend time, scenario and situation — learn from them, but question.
When someone offers a quote to back up their belief in public forum it was perfectly ok to question. Therefore, when someone offers me a quote to convince me that Americans love the White House Staff and President just because they are liars — I say that yes, a percentage do but that is shifting. Does everyone love FOX News/Glenn Beck — no but it is shifting also — a varitable rating s bonanza. To me the quote applies to polarized viewpoints — NOT WHOLESALE American views.
——————————-The quote Mata Harley interpreted for me as she though me too stupid to understand. . .represents a leftist viewpoint.
The men the American public admire most extravagantly [i.e. Obama, Axelrod, Rahm'bo, and ilk] are the most daring liars; [can't argue that one...] the men they detest most violently [opposition... conservatives Beck? Rush? tea parties? insurance industries? CBO? pick one...] are those who try to tell them the truth.” – H. L. Mencken (1880 – 1956)
——————————-
I do not subscribe that all Americans most admire the daring liars and used examples to show this formula does not apply. . .wholesale. Neither does that apply wholesale to whistle blowers.
I used absurd examples to try and blow a whole in this. . .ie daring Liars in history — Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini (although he was breifly a darling), and thousands more — including the absurd examples of two well known liars. . .Madoff, Benedict Arnold, Were/are all of these admired by all Americans because they were liars?
Subsequently, are all whistle blowers reviled? Woodward and Bernstein come to mind. Glenn Beck IS hated by the left but boy if I had a tv show at 5 o’clock, I sure would love his ratings. And by the way, not everyone loathes Beck. . .he is doing some questioning that was left undone by MSM.
Additionally, I was trying to raise a point that Americans can run to the internet and check out facts more readily than even a decade ago. . .citizen journalism goes around determined propagandists.
So while I appreciate and love any history lessons as a chance to learn, I did not appreciate the patronization. I am just trying to question the wholesale application of a quote. . .to justify the argument. . .
Finally.
Our country is in a varitable tug-of-war for it’s very foundation. As imperfect of a country as we may be, we have always strived to evolve, improve, and help those in true need.
We are divided politically (and have been at times throughout our history) and each side of the fence has its arguments. For awhile, Obama was able to con enough people to his campaign rhetoric and hollow promises. According to THE quote we have been beating like a dead horse – Americans love him and his minions. . .but I do not believe all love him. According to the quote. . . the whistle blowers are reviled (FOX et al). . but I do not believe all are reviled. Just depends from what side of the rope one is tugging.
In this political tug-of-war regarding the White House/Anita Mao Dunn vs Fox/Glenn Beck, I think a more appropriate quote to be ————————
You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.
Abraham Lincoln, (attributed)
16th president of US (1809 – 1865)
My bet is on the common sense of the American people winning the tug-of-war — and as long as we have the internet and free speech, and speak up about the glorification of mass murderers and stop their deification — our odds are good. . .very good and I’ll bet the 1.8 million of my new best friends that I marched with in DC on 9-12 will back me up on that one!
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Perhaps when you whine like a six year old girl about being referred to as a (liberal [which you, yourself, admit.]/Leftist/Socialist/Marxist/Communist) or about your assertions being exposed as (falsehoods/fabrications/lies [proven over and over and over again]) or about having been proven to be (wrong/delusional/without credibility/drinking too much Kool Aid, narcissistic, in need of psychotherapy) we should simply respond to you with:
“We know it when we see it.”
That is, after all, the standard to which your hold yourself.
About trying to bucket all Americans into one mindset. . .CNN had something to say today on this
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/20/cnn-poll-half-the-country-disagrees-with-obama-on-issues/
@Aye (#135).
No, not “proven” over and over and over again.
over and over and over again.
Assertions and judgements by those so asserting, do not make the assertions true.
In fact, using your own (not exactly high) standards, one might label these assertions as falsehoods.
Your debate strategy is to make a baseless accusation, keep asserting the accusation, get in the last word, then, in future threads, make allusions to your accusation, elevating it to an assertion, which you claim to have “proven.”
Uh-uh. The only ones buying it are those who think as you. I’m going over your head and over their heads.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA