15 Oct

Anita Dunn…White House Advisor…Chairman Mao Fan…Fox News Hater…

                                       

Remember Anita Dunn who, at this moment, is employed in the White House?

Image Source,Photobucket Uploader Firefox Extension

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.

This entry was posted in Barack Obama, China, Communism, Culture, Politics. Bookmark the permalink. Thursday, October 15th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
| 842 views

154 Responses to Anita Dunn…White House Advisor…Chairman Mao Fan…Fox News Hater…

  1. Mark says: 151

    I POSTED: The “big lie” propaganda technique is epitomized by so-called “Accuracy In Media” and even Mike’s America in their fraudulent “Stalinist” meme. George Orwell (”1984″) described it as “To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed…”

    MIKE’S AMERICA RESPONDED: “Thanks Mark. You just described what you and your fellow Stalinists DO EVERY DAY!”

    So there you have it, ladies & gentlemen! Not only does Mike’s America refuse to substantiate his claim that Frank Marshall Davis was an “avowed Stalinist,” but he has now expanded his delusion to include ME because I challenged his claim.

    This clearly reflects the cognitive impairment of Mike’s America and his ilk. As reflected in the “Right-Wing Fantasyland” post at http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/Kaleokualoha/gG59cf :

    “Jumping to conclusions seems to be quite common in the fantasyland of the right-wing blogosphere. When asked to substantiate their conclusions, we may encounter bluster, red herrings, and ad hominem attacks more often than rational, focused answers. Military Intelligence students are quickly disabused of such behavior, and learn the value of supporting every conclusion they proffer. Researchers at the Rand Corporation and other highly regarded research institutions often come from such rigorous backgrounds, where conclusions are based on empirical evidence, rather than wishful thinking.”

    I only wish that I had encountered such wretched characters while on active duty. I would have taught them the cost of such dishonorable conduct, one way or another.

    ReplyReply
  2. i am like most people i know . i have a job ( NOT NOW ) come home from work cook clean help my kid with homework you know the living biz . well i have found my sealf with some time on my hands and though i would look at gleen beck who i have olney seen 3 – 4 times . i don’t trust the news that i see on tv it just fells like bullshit . seen gleens show and though i would do some looking in to how much bullshit he was squarting out of his mouth . the more i look at his crazy talk the more i trust him . so far he is looking good in my eyes ill prob keep an eye on him after i find a job . i don’t vote becouse i don’t have time to look at what is going on and i don’t trust people ( don’t want to vote for the next hittler ) bush was bad president Barack Obama i don’t know yet i know he it trying to do good thaings but so was hittler . he was trying to change the world

    ReplyReply
  3. @aye (#145):

    Thank you for demonstrating so clearly the wretchedness of your repeated claims that I have “lied” on the Internet.

    You offer the following examples:

    1. The fact that I stated that a great many people, included highly respected academics, have cited Adam Smith as supporting progressive taxation, along with Karl Marx. You disagree with this premise; I think that Smith’s words clearly show that he does support the concept that people with more money should pay higher taxes, but that’s not the point. The point is that I didn’t lie about anything.

    2. You keep bringing up Snopesgate.

    To quote your #145:

    First, quoting me:

    I read the headlines and “went” with those headlines. Within 5 minutes, when doing a purely mechanical check, the headline had been changed from “True” to “Mixed” and I — only at that time — actually read the rest of the article.

    You retort:

    The problem here is that the “headlines” you’re trying to fall back on as justification never supported your claim regarding the 2001 nomination. The pages said “True” and later “Mixed” in regard to a 2002 nomination.

    O.K. Why don’t we all go and look at the page in question:

    http://www.snopes.com/rumors/nobel.asp

    Current Headlines:

    Claim: President George W Bush was nominated to receive the Nobel Peace Prize

    Status: Mixture (at the time I first read and made my post, it had said True)

    Example: (Collected on the Internet, 2001)

    Now, if one goes on to carefully read the entire piece, it’s evident that, while there is no proof that Bush was ever nominated, the Snopes people consider 2001 to be mere rumor, while 2002 is felt to have more support. However, at the time of my original post, I was hurried (I was actually attending a breast cancer meeting at the San Francisco Marriott and was literally on a breakfast/coffee break in an area with Wi-Fi access) and did not carefully read the text under the headlines. So I made a very temporary mistake, which I myself discovered and corrected within five minutes of the original posting and before Aye posted his “gotcha” message. I discovered my mistake by simply doing a mechanical check of the link. The only reason I discovered the mistake was because the Snopes people had changed the headline from “True” to “Mixed” (or “Mixture,” I thought I’d remembered it was “Mixed,” but today it says “Mixture,” but that’s not substantive).

    This whole Snopes thing is very useful for illustrating Aye’s debate style. When Aye doesn’t agree with your arguments, he focuses the bulk of his energies on going after you, as a person. The Snopes thing has to be the most trivial issue imaginable: were I trying to “lie” about Bush being nominated for the Nobel Prize, would I post a link to my source for this, when the source did not agree with my claim? What this shows is that I made a careless mistake (which, again, I corrected within 5 minutes — before the end of my coffee break); and I have explained this again and again and again, in response to Aye’s continued assertions that this supports his contention that I’m a liar. But Aye just continues to make the assertions.

    Here’s my assertion. Aye is a gutless coward who libels people while hiding behind a pseudonym.

    Quoting me, directed to Aye:

    and it is a fact that you were called out on your shameful attempts to impugn my integrity by a blog reader who happened to be a conservative

    Aye responds:

    Actually, not true at all.
    SOP referred to my repeated insistence that you provide proof to support your point.
    He/she found my tone “aggressive” which I readily admit is true and make no apologies for.

    Your “insistence” that I provide “proof?”

    Good grief, I explained what happened about the Snopes thing. I misread the Snopes article, made a mistake, found my mistake, and corrected it within 5 minutes. What “proof” was required?

    Quoting me:

    and you were supported in this effort by no one.

    Aye responds:

    So, under the application of your pretzel logic the only way I can be correct is if someone else supports me, eh?

    I’ll tuck that gem of reasoning away for future reference because 99.9994% of the time you have no one at all supporting your arguments.

    Here’s the issue: What percent of contributors to this blog are conservatives? I don’t know. But it’s very large. I do know that whenever I make posts which argue against the conservative point of view, I am immediately gang tackled by hordes of conservatives. Of course, no one ever supports any of my arguments. Who wants to be gang tackled by hordes of conservatives?

    But no one and I mean no one thinks that I was “lying” to anyone, regarding the Bush/Nobel prize post. I provided a link. I made a careless mistake. I found my own mistake within 5 minutes and corrected it. And this episode is your exhibit A with regard to me being a liar. And the Adam Smith thing is exhibit B.

    In your latest post, you seemingly offer an exhibit C.

    My requests for specificity regarding prior Peace Prize winners who supposedly received the Prize “not for actual accomplishment, but for good intentions instead” also remain unanswered.

    No, that’s not true. I provided such a list of people who received awards for good intentions but negligible achievement. I conceded that Obama’s nomination was an extreme example of this.

    You apparently believe that the UN Climate Change Committee had achieved something beyond good intentions; others might disagree. In any event, this honest difference of opinion between us is simply that — honest. It is not a lie.

    Again, here’s my assertion:

    Aye is a gutless coward who libels people while hiding behind a pseudonym.

    - Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>