Anita Dunn...

[mudwhistle]

Or quoting Mao on the campaign trail .....
or expressing any type of admiration for anything Mao said or did .....

My personal opinion is that being able to find something of merit in otherwise dispicable persons is not necessarily a bad thing. In this particular case I find using Mao to illustrate an example of someone who stayed true to his convictions in spite of those who attempted to sidetrack him with THEIR convictions is not a bad thing. I understand her comments to be a endorsement of staying true to your own principles and I don't have a problem with that.

It is all to easy to nitpick a line or two out of context, twist the purpose and the meaning and come up with something sinister. I think that's a common M.O. of a particular commentator who uses this tactic often.

It's still a molehill imho.

I think if you read up on Mao you might think differently.

Word has it he refused to have sex with the same woman twice.....that he ordered the killing of various species of birds because he was afraid of them spreading decease. That from 1949- 53 he had over 700,000 people executed and possibly as many as 2 to 5 million.

In Shanghai, people jumping to their deaths from skyscrapers became so commonplace that they acquired the nickname 'parachutes'. Some biographers have pointed out that driving those perceived as enemies to suicide was a common tactic during the Mao-era. For example, in his biography of Mao, Philip Short notes that in the Yan'an Rectification Movement, Mao gave explicit instructions that "no cadre is to be killed," but in practice allowed security chief Kang Sheng to drive opponents to suicide and that "this pattern was repeated throughout his leadership of the People's Republic".

Mao Zedong - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This was one perverted dude...and these people seem to want to overlook all of that and still quote him.....repeat his beliefs and quotes.

But let's all overlook this because to many in the Obama Administration they're just looking at his good qualities, not all of that evil stuff...

....HORSESHIT. You must take the man as a whole and judge him from an overall perspective....not cherry-pick what you like about this oxygen thief and waste of humanity and throw out all of the bad that he was.

 

[nodoginnafight]

So if one was to read the bio of lets say.. Hitler, that would make them a tyrant also? There is a big difference between reading Mao's book and claiming him as a favorite philosopher. Wouldn't you say?

Or quoting Mao on the campaign trail .....
or expressing any type of admiration for anything Mao said or did .....

My personal opinion is that being able to find something of merit in otherwise dispicable persons is not necessarily a bad thing. In this particular case I find using Mao to illustrate an example of someone who stayed true to his convictions in spite of those who attempted to sidetrack him with THEIR convictions is not a bad thing. I understand her comments to be a endorsement of staying true to your own principles and I don't have a problem with that.

It is all to easy to nitpick a line or two out of context, twist the purpose and the meaning and come up with something sinister. I think that's a common M.O. of a particular commentator who uses this tactic often.

It's still a molehill imho.

I see, so you simply ignore the 62 million people that he was responsible for killing, because well he had stayed true to his convictions.

I think trying to put words into people's mouths - claiming that they said something that they clearly did not - and then trying to argue with THAT - is dishonest and a clear signal of a weak position.

If you'd like to take issue or discuss what I actually posted - I'm interested. If you would not - then I am not. I don't come here for such juvenile time-wasting.

 

[Sinatra]

Or quoting Mao on the campaign trail .....
or expressing any type of admiration for anything Mao said or did .....

My personal opinion is that being able to find something of merit in otherwise dispicable persons is not necessarily a bad thing. In this particular case I find using Mao to illustrate an example of someone who stayed true to his convictions in spite of those who attempted to sidetrack him with THEIR convictions is not a bad thing. I understand her comments to be a endorsement of staying true to your own principles and I don't have a problem with that.

It is all to easy to nitpick a line or two out of context, twist the purpose and the meaning and come up with something sinister. I think that's a common M.O. of a particular commentator who uses this tactic often.

It's still a molehill imho.

I think if you read up on Mao you might think differently.

Word has it he refused to have sex with the same woman twice.....that he ordered the killing of various species of birds because he was afraid of them spreading decease. That from 1949- 53 he had over 700,000 people executed and possibly as many as 2 to 5 million.

In Shanghai, people jumping to their deaths from skyscrapers became so commonplace that they acquired the nickname 'parachutes'. Some biographers have pointed out that driving those perceived as enemies to suicide was a common tactic during the Mao-era. For example, in his biography of Mao, Philip Short notes that in the Yan'an Rectification Movement, Mao gave explicit instructions that "no cadre is to be killed," but in practice allowed security chief Kang Sheng to drive opponents to suicide and that "this pattern was repeated throughout his leadership of the People's Republic".

Mao Zedong - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This was one perverted dude...and these people seem to want to overlook all of that and still quote him.....repeat his beliefs and quotes.

But let's all overlook this because to many in the Obama Administration they're just looking at his good qualities, not all of that evil stuff...

....horseshit. You must take the man as a whole and judge him from an overall perspective....not cherry-pick what you like about this oxygen thief and waste of humanity and throw out all of the bad that he was.

He remains one of the great monsters of the 20th Century - and yet a high ranking official and adviser in the Obama administration praises him during a high school graduation ceremony.

Disgusting...

 

[nodoginnafight]

Or quoting Mao on the campaign trail .....
or expressing any type of admiration for anything Mao said or did .....

My personal opinion is that being able to find something of merit in otherwise dispicable persons is not necessarily a bad thing. In this particular case I find using Mao to illustrate an example of someone who stayed true to his convictions in spite of those who attempted to sidetrack him with THEIR convictions is not a bad thing. I understand her comments to be a endorsement of staying true to your own principles and I don't have a problem with that.

It is all to easy to nitpick a line or two out of context, twist the purpose and the meaning and come up with something sinister. I think that's a common M.O. of a particular commentator who uses this tactic often.

It's still a molehill imho.

I think if you read up on Mao you might think differently.

Word has it he refused to have sex with the same woman twice.....that he ordered the killing of various species of birds because he was afraid of them spreading decease. That from 1949- 53 he had over 700,000 people executed and possibly as many as 2 to 5 million.

In Shanghai, people jumping to their deaths from skyscrapers became so commonplace that they acquired the nickname 'parachutes'. Some biographers have pointed out that driving those perceived as enemies to suicide was a common tactic during the Mao-era. For example, in his biography of Mao, Philip Short notes that in the Yan'an Rectification Movement, Mao gave explicit instructions that "no cadre is to be killed," but in practice allowed security chief Kang Sheng to drive opponents to suicide and that "this pattern was repeated throughout his leadership of the People's Republic".

Mao Zedong - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This was one perverted dude...and these people seem to want to overlook all of that and still quote him.....repeat his beliefs and quotes.

But let's all overlook this because to many in the Obama Administration they're just looking at his good qualities, not all of that evil stuff...

....horseshit. You must take the man as a whole and judge him from an overall perspective....not cherry-pick what you like about this oxygen thief and waste of humanity and throw out all of the bad that he was.

"word has it?" ........

and btw - it is not "many in the Obama administration" at least I'm not aware that John McCain, Lee Atwater, Newt Gingrich, or George W. Bush hold positions in the Obama administration.

 

[Sinatra]

Or quoting Mao on the campaign trail .....
or expressing any type of admiration for anything Mao said or did .....

My personal opinion is that being able to find something of merit in otherwise dispicable persons is not necessarily a bad thing. In this particular case I find using Mao to illustrate an example of someone who stayed true to his convictions in spite of those who attempted to sidetrack him with THEIR convictions is not a bad thing. I understand her comments to be a endorsement of staying true to your own principles and I don't have a problem with that.

It is all to easy to nitpick a line or two out of context, twist the purpose and the meaning and come up with something sinister. I think that's a common M.O. of a particular commentator who uses this tactic often.

It's still a molehill imho.

I think if you read up on Mao you might think differently.

Word has it he refused to have sex with the same woman twice.....that he ordered the killing of various species of birds because he was afraid of them spreading decease. That from 1949- 53 he had over 700,000 people executed and possibly as many as 2 to 5 million.

In Shanghai, people jumping to their deaths from skyscrapers became so commonplace that they acquired the nickname 'parachutes'. Some biographers have pointed out that driving those perceived as enemies to suicide was a common tactic during the Mao-era. For example, in his biography of Mao, Philip Short notes that in the Yan'an Rectification Movement, Mao gave explicit instructions that "no cadre is to be killed," but in practice allowed security chief Kang Sheng to drive opponents to suicide and that "this pattern was repeated throughout his leadership of the People's Republic".

Mao Zedong - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This was one perverted dude...and these people seem to want to overlook all of that and still quote him.....repeat his beliefs and quotes.

But let's all overlook this because to many in the Obama Administration they're just looking at his good qualities, not all of that evil stuff...

....horseshit. You must take the man as a whole and judge him from an overall perspective....not cherry-pick what you like about this oxygen thief and waste of humanity and throw out all of the bad that he was.

He remains one of the great monsters of the 20th Century - and yet a high ranking official and adviser in the Obama administration praises him during a high school graduation ceremony.

Disgusting...

,,,

 

[Coyote]

Or quoting Mao on the campaign trail .....
or expressing any type of admiration for anything Mao said or did .....

My personal opinion is that being able to find something of merit in otherwise dispicable persons is not necessarily a bad thing. In this particular case I find using Mao to illustrate an example of someone who stayed true to his convictions in spite of those who attempted to sidetrack him with THEIR convictions is not a bad thing. I understand her comments to be a endorsement of staying true to your own principles and I don't have a problem with that.

It is all to easy to nitpick a line or two out of context, twist the purpose and the meaning and come up with something sinister. I think that's a common M.O. of a particular commentator who uses this tactic often.

It's still a molehill imho.

I think if you read up on Mao you might think differently.

Word has it he refused to have sex with the same woman twice.....that he ordered the killing of various species of birds because he was afraid of them spreading decease. That from 1949- 53 he had over 700,000 people executed and possibly as many as 2 to 5 million.

In Shanghai, people jumping to their deaths from skyscrapers became so commonplace that they acquired the nickname 'parachutes'. Some biographers have pointed out that driving those perceived as enemies to suicide was a common tactic during the Mao-era. For example, in his biography of Mao, Philip Short notes that in the Yan'an Rectification Movement, Mao gave explicit instructions that "no cadre is to be killed," but in practice allowed security chief Kang Sheng to drive opponents to suicide and that "this pattern was repeated throughout his leadership of the People's Republic".

Mao Zedong - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This was one perverted dude...and these people seem to want to overlook all of that and still quote him.....repeat his beliefs and quotes.

But let's all overlook this because to many in the Obama Administration they're just looking at his good qualities, not all of that evil stuff...

....horseshit. You must take the man as a whole and judge him from an overall perspective....not cherry-pick what you like about this oxygen thief and waste of humanity and throw out all of the bad that he was.

None of which have anything to do with the fact that he also had some excellent philosophical quotes that many people still go by today - including those of your own ideological persuasion. Like Machiavelli - the man may have been ruthless or a monster, but he said some damn good stuff that you are trying to twist into some sort of perverted support for his atrocities.

Give it a rest and quit creating strawmen.

 

[Murf76]

None of which have anything to do with the fact that he also had some excellent philosophical quotes that many people still go by today - including those of your own ideological persuasion. Like Machiavelli - the man may have been ruthless or a monster, but he said some damn good stuff that you are trying to twist into some sort of perverted support for his atrocities.

Give it a rest and quit creating strawmen.

strawman - a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted

There's nothing "weak" or "sham" about noting that Mao was a notorious mass murderer and that apparently your White House communications officer thinks he's a great role model for high school kids.

 

[Vel]

Or quoting Mao on the campaign trail .....
or expressing any type of admiration for anything Mao said or did .....

My personal opinion is that being able to find something of merit in otherwise dispicable persons is not necessarily a bad thing. In this particular case I find using Mao to illustrate an example of someone who stayed true to his convictions in spite of those who attempted to sidetrack him with THEIR convictions is not a bad thing. I understand her comments to be a endorsement of staying true to your own principles and I don't have a problem with that.

It is all to easy to nitpick a line or two out of context, twist the purpose and the meaning and come up with something sinister. I think that's a common M.O. of a particular commentator who uses this tactic often.

It's still a molehill imho.

I see, so you simply ignore the 62 million people that he was responsible for killing, because well he had stayed true to his convictions.

Nice strawman.

Not a strawman at all. To tell children to follow Mao in being true to their princples is to tell them to stay true to your princples regardless of what you have to do and who you have to kill. In order to follow his princples Mao murdered MILLIONS. Just steamroll over your oposition.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I see, so you simply ignore the 62 million people that he was responsible for killing, because well he had stayed true to his convictions.

Nice strawman.

Not a strawman at all. To tell children to follow Mao in being true to their princples is to tell them to stay true to your princples regardless of what you have to do and who you have to kill. In order to follow his princples Mao murdered MILLIONS. Just steamroll over your oposition.

The previous quote from lonestar logic is the definition of a strawman - whether you understand what that means or not.

 

[Vel]

Nice strawman.

Not a strawman at all. To tell children to follow Mao in being true to their princples is to tell them to stay true to your princples regardless of what you have to do and who you have to kill. In order to follow his princples Mao murdered MILLIONS. Just steamroll over your oposition.

The previous quote from lonestar logic is the definition of a strawman - whether you understand what that means or not.

No it isn't. You're simply trying to defend the indefensible and in order to do so, have to conveniently ingnore where Mao's principled determination led him . Had he not murdered millions, no one would give a damn that Anita Dunn seemed to admire him and hold him up to children as a good example.

 

[nodoginnafight]

No it isn't.

Yes it is - he claimed that I said something that I clearly did not say. And then tried to argue with what he made up rather than what I actually said. I'm really sorry you don't understand - but I do.

 

[Ame®icano]

Well, kids... if you follow your principles, you may be as successful as Mao was.

 

[Vel]

No it isn't.

Yes it is - he claimed that I said something that I clearly did not say. And then tried to argue with what he made up rather than what I actually said. I'm really sorry you don't understand - but I do.

I didn't see that he claimed you SAID anything. All he did was point out your failure to address the fact that Mao was a mass murderer being held up as an example for children to follow.

 

[Sinatra]

Not a strawman at all. To tell children to follow Mao in being true to their princples is to tell them to stay true to your princples regardless of what you have to do and who you have to kill. In order to follow his princples Mao murdered MILLIONS. Just steamroll over your oposition.

The previous quote from lonestar logic is the definition of a strawman - whether you understand what that means or not.

No it isn't. You're simply trying to defend the indefensible and in order to do so, have to conveniently ingnore where Mao's principled determination led him . Had he not murdered millions, no one would give a damn that Anita Dunn seemed to admire him and hold him up to children as a good example.

Well said and quite correct.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Or quoting Mao on the campaign trail .....
or expressing any type of admiration for anything Mao said or did .....

My personal opinion is that being able to find something of merit in otherwise dispicable persons is not necessarily a bad thing. In this particular case I find using Mao to illustrate an example of someone who stayed true to his convictions in spite of those who attempted to sidetrack him with THEIR convictions is not a bad thing. I understand her comments to be a endorsement of staying true to your own principles and I don't have a problem with that.

It is all to easy to nitpick a line or two out of context, twist the purpose and the meaning and come up with something sinister. I think that's a common M.O. of a particular commentator who uses this tactic often.

It's still a molehill imho.

I see, so you simply ignore the 62 million people that he was responsible for killing, because well he had stayed true to his convictions.

Nice strawman.

It's not a strawman argument. You reason that there is some merit in the philosophy of Mao while disregarding the fact that he was responsible for the death of 62 million lives. To credit someone for their supposed merits, you have to also accept their faults.

 

[Wicked Jester]

So, lets take a look at the big picture here.

Lets take a look at those Obama keeps at arms length. At least those he still has to keep at arms length because FOX news is causing him to constantly chuck them under the bus once they expose the dirty bastards for being the dirty bastards they truly are.

Van Jones (Communist). Thanks to FOX, his ass is outta there.
Anita Dunn (MAO loving liberal nutjob)
Mark Lloyd (Chavez loving marxist dirtbag)
Harold Kho (Sharia law loving lunatic)
Cass Sunstein (Bat shit fucking crazy socialist loon)
Kevin Jennings (Perverted piece of liberal shit)

Now, take into account Obama's own admissions of his admiration of fabian socialist George Bernard Shaw and, his statement that his picks for personnel would fully define his agenda, and it becomes quite clear that his agenda is downright asinine. His agenda goes against everything that has made, and continues to make this country great. His agenda MUST be crushed!

So, it really comes as no surprise that Dunn would fully define herself as a complete dirtbag. She perfectly fits in with all the nutjobs, too include this nutjob president.

 

[Coyote]

I see, so you simply ignore the 62 million people that he was responsible for killing, because well he had stayed true to his convictions.

Nice strawman.

It's not a strawman argument. You reason that there is some merit in the philosophy of Mao while disregarding the fact that he was responsible for the death of 62 million lives. To credit someone for their supposed merits, you have to also accept their faults.

I am not crediting Mao, the person with merits. I am saying that there are merits in what he has said - his philosophy. The strawman is in attempting to tie the two together - that if you praise the one, you are therefore praising the other.

And all of it is ridiculous because Dunn was using Mao's quotes in a very specific context.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Or quoting Mao on the campaign trail .....
or expressing any type of admiration for anything Mao said or did .....

My personal opinion is that being able to find something of merit in otherwise dispicable persons is not necessarily a bad thing. In this particular case I find using Mao to illustrate an example of someone who stayed true to his convictions in spite of those who attempted to sidetrack him with THEIR convictions is not a bad thing. I understand her comments to be a endorsement of staying true to your own principles and I don't have a problem with that.

It is all to easy to nitpick a line or two out of context, twist the purpose and the meaning and come up with something sinister. I think that's a common M.O. of a particular commentator who uses this tactic often.

It's still a molehill imho.

I see, so you simply ignore the 62 million people that he was responsible for killing, because well he had stayed true to his convictions.

I think trying to put words into people's mouths - claiming that they said something that they clearly did not - and then trying to argue with THAT - is dishonest and a clear signal of a weak position.

If you'd like to take issue or discuss what I actually posted - I'm interested. If you would not - then I am not. I don't come here for such juvenile time-wasting.

Did I put words in your mouth? Did you not say "that being able to find something of merit in otherwise dispicable persons is not necessarily a bad thing"? And you went on to say what good you found worthy of merit was Mao staying true to his convictions. Are these NOT your words? I simply pointed out the fact that while you admire him sticking to his convictions he had killed millions upon millions of people.

 

[Sinatra]

Round and round they go, attempting to spin the fact Obama's Director of Communications announced Mao as one of her two favorite political philosophers.

Next we shall suggest Hitler to head the International Relations Council...

 

[Vel]

Nice strawman.

It's not a strawman argument. You reason that there is some merit in the philosophy of Mao while disregarding the fact that he was responsible for the death of 62 million lives. To credit someone for their supposed merits, you have to also accept their faults.

I am not crediting Mao, the person with merits. I am saying that there are merits in what he has said - his philosophy. The strawman is in attempting to tie the two together - that if you praise the one, you are therefore praising the other.

And all of it is ridiculous because Dunn was using Mao's quotes in a very specific context.

You can't separate Mao's philosophy from Mao. You can't say.. "follow his philosophy but make sure you stop when you reach the part about killing the people in your way.