had people in his administration and inner circle that praised the likes of Adolf Hitler or Franco. Or who cited these individuals as inspirations of their political philosophy. We all know what would happen. So then why is it so many Obama people, like Mark Llyod or Anita Dunn, can cite Mao Tse Tung or Hugo Chavez. Obama surrounds himself with radicals because he himself is a radical.

[Edited on October 20, 2009 at 9:50 PM. Reason : .]

10/20/2009 9:50:14 PM

What the fuck?

Get out of here you loon.

10/20/2009 9:51:58 PM

i predict CHEESE

10/20/2009 9:53:47 PM

well, he makes a good point.

10/20/2009 9:55:24 PM

You mean like John McCain was pretending to do during the campaign?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYJ15vbo15w&feature=player_embedded

[Edited on October 20, 2009 at 10:00 PM. Reason : link]

10/20/2009 9:57:35 PM

Comparing anyone to Hitler automatically voids your argument, unless there's some situation I don't know about where someone is attempting to rise to power within a country and then systematically trying to eliminate an entire ethnic group of people.

So, is that happening? If not shut up.

10/20/2009 9:58:26 PM

If you were a hot dog, and you were starving, would you eat yourself?

10/20/2009 9:59:26 PM

I dunno... praising Mao isn't exactly un-Hitleresque...

10/20/2009 9:59:31 PM

Hitler also spoke German.

So, therefore, if Obama says "Aufweidersehen" he is emulating HITLER!

10/20/2009 10:01:03 PM

this mark lloyd:

Quote :

"The point I was trying to make was that there was dramatic social change in places like Rwanda and Venezuela and that media played an important part in that. I am not a Chavez supporter. I do not support any political leader other than the president of the United States. I do believe all Americans would benefit from more opportunities to participate in media and that the answer to ugly speech is not censorship, but more speech."

and here's anita dunn's actual quote:

Quote :

" DUNN: A lot of you have a great deal of ability. A lot of you work hard. Put them together, and that answers the "Why not?" question. There's usually not a good reason. And then the third lesson and tip actually come from two of my favorite political philosophers, Mao Zedong and Mother Teresa -- not often coupled with each together, but the two people that I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point, which is, you're going to make choices. You're going to challenge. You're going to say, "Why not?" You're going to figure out how to do things that have never been done before. But here's the deal: These are your choices. They are no one else's. In 1947, when Mao Zedong was being challenged within his own party on his plan to basically take China over, Chiang Kai-shek and the Nationalist Chinese held the cities, they had the army, they had the air force, they had everything on their side. And people said, "How can you win? How can you do this? How can you do this against all of the odds against you?" And Mao Zedong said, you know, "You fight your war, and I'll fight mine." And think about that for a second. You know, you don't have to accept the definition of how to do things, and you don't have to follow other people's choices and paths, OK? It is about your choices and your path. You fight your own war. You lay out your own path. You figure out what's right for you. You don't let external definition define how good you are internally. You fight your war. You let them fight theirs. Everybody has their own path. And then Mother Teresa, who, upon receiving a letter from a fairly affluent young person who asked her whether she could come over and help with that orphanage in Calcutta, responded very simply: "Go find your own Calcutta." OK? Go find your own Calcutta. Fight your own path. Go find the thing that is unique to you, the challenge that is actually yours, not somebody else's challenge. "

10/20/2009 10:06:19 PM

not quite. But, you have to at least admit that Mao did some sketch shit, too...

10/20/2009 10:06:22 PM

I think the point is that the OP is insane and/or and idiot.

10/20/2009 10:12:58 PM

distinctly possible. but he may still have a point

10/20/2009 10:15:03 PM

No, he doesn't.

10/20/2009 10:16:40 PM

it is based on the false pretense that mentioning someone is praising or endorsing them. its retarded and completely in line with his other posts.

10/20/2009 10:27:31 PM

In that case, Sean Hannity must really love Hitler.

10/20/2009 10:28:42 PM

and you don't think calling someone one of your "favorite political philosophers" is a kind of praise?

10/20/2009 10:29:19 PM

yeah, but Anita Dunn cited him as one of her favorite philosophers. Despite her assertions to the contrary after the fact, the original video hasn't a hint of irony.


So the OP's point is valid. Mao gets a free pass only because his philosophy, communism, while utterly discredited in practice and it's utterly horrendous record on human rights, still retains a soft spot in the idealistic minds of the American left.

10/20/2009 10:32:38 PM

I mean... you could read her quote instead of categorically demonizing her because you're looking for a reason to.

10/20/2009 10:40:30 PM

well the bush family did do a lot of business with nazis back in the day, right?

10/20/2009 10:40:54 PM

Quote :

"Mao gets a free pass only because his philosophy, communism, while utterly discredited in practice and it's utterly horrendous record on human rights, still retains a soft spot in the idealistic minds of the American left. he never declared war on America."

[Edited on October 20, 2009 at 11:46 PM. Reason : ]

10/20/2009 11:46:26 PM

aaaww, you watched Fox News yesterday, too.



i mean, the Bush's, et al, have been in bed with Saudi Princes for decades--a regime that still doesn't recognize women's rights. Not to validate praise for Mao, but it's not like this is some new shit.

We're also endorsing an Afghani candidate who has already pledged to maintain Sharia law, essentially keeping women as 3rd class citizens.

[Edited on October 21, 2009 at 12:04 AM. Reason : fasdfasdddd]

10/21/2009 12:01:36 AM

soooo lemme get this straight:

if someone does something wrong, their entire body of work, either philosophical or physical, is therefore discredited?

10/21/2009 12:14:58 AM

THERE IS NO GRAY AREA, SIR

THIS IS AMURKEH

10/21/2009 12:17:13 AM

Every President since WWII has actively supported a terrible, repressive regime.

[Edited on October 21, 2009 at 12:35 AM. Reason : and by that I mean one that actually still existed and did bad things!]

10/21/2009 12:31:07 AM

Quote :

"distinctly possible. but he may still have a point "

how? Nothing in the OP is factual.\

^ … and most of them before

[Edited on October 21, 2009 at 12:33 AM. Reason : ]

10/21/2009 12:32:56 AM

Is that kind of like how Reagan supported Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war? Or is it worse to be a student of political philosophy than it is to give a dictator chemical and biological weapons?

10/21/2009 12:38:45 AM

I think the answer to that question is "Obviously, you idiot."

10/21/2009 12:40:58 AM

Quote :

"you could read her quote instead of categorically demonizing her because you're looking for a reason to."

I heard the relevant speech.

Quote :

"i mean, the Bush's, et al, have been in bed with Saudi Princes for decades--a regime that still doesn't recognize women's rights. Not to validate praise for Mao, but it's not like this is some new shit."

You make a good point.

Quote :

"if someone does something wrong, their entire body of work, either philosophical or physical, is therefore discredited?"

When that "something" is the death of some 20M people, I'd say that is a pretty black stain. When the death of those people is integral to their re-shaping of a country in the political image they desire, I'd say it is a rather damning point.



Lets be honest, though, one of the themes here is the trend in President Obama's advisers to be leftist collectivists. There is a pretty strong trend developing. I don't think that is irrelevant. Now, whether or not one sees that is a good thing is up for debate, but the Socialism charge has a certain degree of merit.

10/21/2009 5:04:09 AM

^ Yeah, and I don't see Obama's Change Squad incessantly referring back to the Bush days every time their ass gets caught in a sling as a good strategy.

Now this musical interlude.

If you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao / You ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow!

--The Beatles

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrkwgTBrW78

10/21/2009 5:16:02 AM

pretty much no politician should revere or really quote publicly Mao, Stalin, Lenin, or Trotsky.

to do so shows a vast gap in etiquette and highlights disturbing demarcations between what is 'right' and 'wrong' in the mind of the speaker.

but hey, that's just me going on the historical track record of some of the biggest mass murder's and immoral characters in history

hell you can even throw in Castro and his lil' buddy that some of you fucking idolize Ernesto "Che" Guevara... while not a mass murderer he's a pretty despicable human

Quote :

"When that "something" is the death of some 20M people, I'd say that is a pretty black stain. When the death of those people is integral to their re-shaping of a country in the political image they desire, I'd say it is a rather damning point."

qft

[Edited on October 21, 2009 at 8:51 AM. Reason : qft]

10/21/2009 8:50:15 AM

The original post is pretty much a transcript of the last 10 episodes of the Glenn Beck show.

10/21/2009 9:05:07 AM

I DISAGREE WITH GLEN BECK SO RED BARON IS NOT CREDIBLE

10/21/2009 9:20:26 AM

[Edited on October 21, 2009 at 10:37 AM. Reason : I'll just go ahead and put that on my flickr]

10/21/2009 10:35:56 AM

If you agree with Glenn Beck, you're a loon. Get out.

10/21/2009 10:53:35 AM

Quote :

"and you don't think calling someone one of your "favorite political philosophers" is a kind of praise?"

I disagree with some of my favorite philosophers on damn near every point. Do people seriously only like people they agree with? Jesus Christ, you people must miss out on a lot of good, enriching stuff.

10/21/2009 10:55:43 AM

Quote :

"pretty much no politician should revere or really quote publicly Mao, Stalin, Lenin, or Trotsky. to do so shows a vast gap in etiquette and highlights disturbing demarcations between what is 'right' and 'wrong' in the mind of the speaker. but hey, that's just me going on the historical track record of some of the biggest mass murder's and immoral characters in history "

Lenin and Trotsky? Really? These are evil guys that shouldn't be quoted?

10/21/2009 10:57:39 AM

Lenin and Trotsky are great reads... so is Mao. Then again if you're one of the chucklefucks present in this thread, you may NOT EVEN BE ABLE TO TOLERATE AN EVIL SO STRONG

10/21/2009 11:00:00 AM

Anyone who has a political ideology that's different from a mix of American Exceptionalism, Evangelical Christianity, and Neoconservatism is EVIL.

10/21/2009 11:00:26 AM

From the CNN article about it. Consider the sources, I guess, but it's pretty much just a couple of facts:

Quote :

" But it's not just Dunn, a Democrat, who has used Mao as someone she reads. Media Matters for America, a liberal media watchdog group, points out that former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, also a Fox News contributor, quoted Mao in a 1995 Roll Call profile. "War is politics with blood; politics is war without blood," Gingrich said, citing Mao. Karl Rove, another Fox News contributor, wrote in a December 2008 Wall Street Journal op-ed that President Bush "encouraged me to read a Mao biography.""

10/21/2009 11:02:31 AM

^Heh, and now, gentlemen, let me show you a textbook example of confirmation bias.

[See posts below mine]

10/21/2009 11:04:11 AM

Quote :

"admit mao did some sketch shit too"

GW did some "sketch shit". Take the good parts. Leave the bad parts. Its all still relative...

10/21/2009 11:28:13 AM

Quote :

"Lenin and Trotsky? Really? These are evil guys that shouldn't be quoted? Lenin and Trotsky are great reads... so is Mao. Then again if you're one of the chucklefucks present in this thread, you may NOT EVEN BE ABLE TO TOLERATE AN EVIL SO STRONG"

reads, sure. i've got no problem with that.

quotations to live by/follow fuck no.

trotsky was pretty fucking brütal and Lenin was no better, read a book

[Edited on October 21, 2009 at 11:56 AM. Reason : do some of you seriously think Lenin or Trotsky were 'good' people? or even ones to be emmulated?]

10/21/2009 11:55:28 AM

That's just retarded. Do you seriously think that the only two choices here are 1) not emulating any of their behavior or taking any of their advice and 2) emulating all of their behavior and taking all of their advice.

10/21/2009 12:08:34 PM

^

10/21/2009 12:09:03 PM

There are a lot of people who are quoted, followed, or even revered who weren't necessarily good people.

Machiavelli, Napoleon Bonaparte, Julius Ceasar, Peter the Great, Richard III (The Lionheart) just to name a few that pop into my head.

Hell, in our own country Andrew Jackson was a drunkard and a jackass. The former initiated the deaths of thousands of Native Americans. Regardless, he is venerated for expanding the power of the Presidency and has his statue in DC sitting right next to the Whitehouse (at the center of Lafayette Square, which is one of the more confusing things in this city).

Hearing a quote from one of them doesn't necessarily make me think that the person speaking aspires to the person they're quoting.

10/21/2009 12:18:13 PM

why must you assume black and white?

you don't think their radically extreme views on violence and use of force wouldn't color their other ideas at all? really?

and are you really supporting some of the biggest mass murders of all time as well?

I'm sorry that I think that you shouldn't use ideas that come from the minds of these people. I believe that way way too few people can actually separate these aspects of their writings and such to the point where it is not having a affect.

you don't see people advocating quoting hitler or stalin much?

Lenin and Trotsky just get less negative press for these actions (they get plenty for their political views, which while I don't follow them, i think it's pretty stupid to attack them from this angle)

My ideas on this matter aren't necessarily more valid than your own, but I think a line has to be drawn somewhere about what is even remotely appropriate for politicians to be spouting off from both ends.

[Edited on October 21, 2009 at 12:20 PM. Reason : oh i agree about Jackson]

10/21/2009 12:18:17 PM

You see this is where critical thinking is helpful

10/21/2009 12:19:53 PM

I, personally, would like to think that most above-average intellects can read something written by someone who was not a good person or who committed genocide or mass-murder, and could still find value from the script.

But I guess thinking critically about what you're reading is just too much to expect from some people.

10/21/2009 12:21:02 PM

I don't have that level of faith in the abilities of others to distill value properly from texts. Especially when most of them are so thoroughly saturated with propaganda.



shit some people still idolize some presidents that were overall pretty horrible for the country (current and past included)

10/21/2009 12:28:01 PM