Will Beck denounce conservatives who've cited Mao, Lenin, Viet Cong?
On his Fox News program, Glenn Beck aired a clip of White House communications director Anita Dunn calling Mao Zedong and Mother Teresa two of her "favorite political philosophers" and used those comments to falsely link Dunn to the murder of tens of millions of Chinese under Mao's reign. But numerous conservatives have approvingly cited the tactics of Mao, Vladimir Lenin, and the Viet Cong, stated that they had used those tactics in their political work, or have otherwise highlighted their philosophies -- leading Media Matters for America to question whether or not Beck will denounce them next.
Beck falsely linked Dunn to the atrocities of "her hero" Mao
But Dunn never praised Mao's ideology or atrocities in video Beck aired. In a video of a speech to high school graduates earlier this year, Dunn cited anecdotes about Mao and Mother Teresa to counsel that "[e]verybody has their own path." From the video, which Beck aired on his October 15 Fox News program:
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.
Beck invoked Mao's atrocities while criticizing Dunn. After commenting that Mao "killed 70 million people," Beck falsely claimed those killings were the work of Dunn's "hero."
BECK: Stop. I wanted to make sure that we at least played the -- there's more -- but I wanted to make sure that we didn't take it out of context. We showed you the nice things she said about Mother Teresa, OK?
So, the reason why this phone hasn't run all week is because the most important political philosopher for her is Mao Zedong -- oh, and Mother Teresa. The guy responsible for more deaths than any other 20th-century leader is her favorite philosopher? How can that man be your favorite anything? He killed 70 million people. That would be like me saying to you, "Oh, you know who my favorite political philosopher is? Adolf Hitler. Have you read Mein Kampf? Just fight your fight, like Hitler did." It's insanity! This is her hero's work! Seventy million dead! (Glenn Beck, 10/15/09)
Goldwater "alter ego" said he "followed the advice of Mao Tse-tung"
Shadegg: "[I]n all ... campaigns where I have served as consultant I have followed the advice of Mao Tse-tung." In his 1964 essay "The Paranoid Style in American Politics," Richard Hofstadter wrote that Stephen C. Shadegg, adviser to Sen. Barry Goldwater during his senatorial and presidential campaigns, approvingly cited Mao and quoted him, saying that he "followed the advice of Mao" while working for Goldwater and in his other campaign work:
In his recent book, How to Win an Election, Stephen C. Shadegg cites a statement attributed to Mao Tse-tung: "Give me just two or three men in a village and I will take the village." Shadegg comments: " In the Goldwater campaigns of 1952 and 1958 and in all other campaigns where I have served as consultant I have followed the advice of Mao Tse-tung." "I would suggest," writes senator Goldwater in Why Not Victory? "that we analyze and copy the strategy of the enemy; theirs has worked and ours has not. (Harper's Magazine, November 1964)
NYT: Shadegg "regarded as the alter ego of Senator Barry Goldwater." In its obituary of Shadegg, The New York Times described him as "a political campaign manager who was regarded as the alter ego of Senator Barry Goldwater in the Senator's unsuccessful quest for the Presidency in 1964." The Times also reported that Shadegg "for three years wrote a nationally syndicated newspaper column that carried Senator Goldwater's byline," "served as Western regional director of the Goldwater forces" during his 1964 presidential campaign, and "was acknowledged as the person closest to the Senator in philosophy and as the craftsman of the Goldwater image as a staunch conservative." (The New York Times, 5/24/1990)
Beck has repeatedly called on Republicans to "get back to the conservative roots of Barry Goldwater." In two editions of his CNN Headline News program during October 2006, Beck called on Republicans to return to the practice of "Barry Goldwater" conservatism.
- Beck: "If the Republicans want to win this or any election, they need to get back to the conservative roots of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. They need to say what they mean and mean what they say. They need to do the right thing. And when I say right, I don't mean like, oops, right, it's the opposite of left. No, I mean right as in the opposite of wrong." (CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck, 10/26/06, retrieved from the Nexis database)
- Beck: "I also know that both parties need to change soon or else. The Republicans better find their soul and their roots, and Ronald Reagan or Barry Goldwater conservativism -- conservativism, or they will lose any advantage -- that was easy for me to say -- any advantage they have gained over the years. The Democrats will either shed their label as the party of Hollywood elitists and people who stand next to Hugo Chavez in Venezuela for a photo op -- hello, Cindy Sheehan -- or they will destroy themselves, as well." (CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck, 10/30/06, from Nexis)
Cato article on " 'Leninist' Strategy" for Social Security reform reportedly laid foundation for Bush's proposal
LA Times cited 1983 Cato Journal article as part of "the groundwork" for Bush's push to change Social Security. According to Los Angeles Times staff writer Janet Hook, "[a] generation of free-market conservatives like [Cato Institute president Edward H.] Crane" had been "laying the groundwork for" "Bush's plan to allow younger workers to divert Social Security taxes into personal investment accounts." Hook then cited a 1983 Cato Journal article in which Heritage Foundation analysts Stuart Butler and Peter Germanis wrote: "It could be many years before the conditions are such that a radical reform of Social Security is possible. ... But then, as Lenin well knew, to be a successful revolutionary, one must also be patient and consistently plan for real reform." From the LA Times article, "They Invested Years in Private Accounts":
Back in 1997, proponents of overhauling Social Security met with the man who would become their most powerful convert: Texas Gov. George W. Bush, whose presidential ambitions were beginning to gel.
The governor dined with Jose Piñera, architect of Chile's 1981 shift from government pensions to worker-owned retirement accounts, in a meeting that helped bring Bush a big step closer to embracing a similar plan for Social Security in his emerging presidential platform.
"I think he wanted to support the idea but needed to be convinced," said Edward H. Crane, president of the libertarian Cato Institute, who was at the dinner. "I really think Jose convinced him."
This week, President Bush's plan to allow younger workers to divert Social Security taxes into personal investment accounts will be a centerpiece of his State of the Union address and a barnstorming tour of the country. It is a tough sell to an uncertain public, but Bush has a secret weapon: A generation of free-market conservatives like Crane and Piñera has been laying the groundwork for this debate.
"It could be many years before the conditions are such that a radical reform of Social Security is possible," wrote Stuart Butler and Peter Germanis, Heritage Foundation analysts, in a 1983 article in the Cato Journal. "But then, as Lenin well knew, to be a successful revolutionary, one must also be patient and consistently plan for real reform."
Now, Bush is drawing on a deep reservoir of resources -- including policy research, ready-to-hire experts and polling on how to discuss the issue -- that conservatives have created over the last 20 years. (Los Angeles Times, 1/30/05)
Heritage analysts' article headlined "Achieving a 'Leninist' Strategy." In their Cato Journal article, Butler and Germanis wrote:
As we contemplate basic reform of the Social Security system, we would do well to draw a few lessons from the Leninist strategy. Many critics of the present system believe, as Marx and Lenin did of capitalism, that the system's days are numbered because of its contradictory objectives or attempting to provide both welfare and insurance. All that really needs to be done, they contend, is to point out these inherent flaws to the taxpayers and to show them that Social Security would be vastly improved if it were restructured into a predominantly private system. Convinced by the undeniable facts and logic, individuals supposedly would then rise up and demand that their representatives make the appropriate reforms.
Cato Institute and Heritage Foundation experts frequently appear on Beck's show. According to a Nexis search, Cato and Heritage experts have appeared on Beck's show a total of at least 14 times in the past six months.
GOP strategist Ralph Reed approvingly cited Mao, Viet Cong
Reed reportedly cited Mao approvingly. A 1992 Seattle Times article reported that Republican strategist and former Christian Coalition director Ralph Reed said in an "interview with The Phoenix Gazette" that "Mao Tse-Tung said politics is war without bloodshed. Clearly, there are some metaphors that sit nicely with politics." From the article:
Televangelist Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition plans to distribute in Washington state an estimated 500,000 copies of its 1992 Voter Guide - a move one news report describes as part of a long-term plan for conservative Christians to control U.S. politics by the end of the century.
But Ralph Reed Jr., executive director of the Chesapeake, Va.-based coalition, called The Phoenix Gazette story "stupid" and said the Christian Coalition's guide was nonpartisan, laying out where candidates for the White House, Congress and the statehouse stand on issues ranging from abortion and gay rights to educational vouchers and a balanced-budget amendment.
[...]
In a recent phone interview with The Phoenix Gazette, Reed said that the war metaphor is apt.
"Mao Tse-Tung said politics is war without bloodshed," he said. "Clearly, there are some metaphors that sit nicely with politics." (The Seattle Times, 10/25/1992, from Nexis)
Reed called for using Viet Cong-style political tactics. In The Art of Political Warfare, John J. Pitney Jr., a contributing editor to the libertarian journal Reason, wrote that Reed explained the Christian Coalition's strategy of sometimes backing " 'stealth candidates' for local office who would downplay their affiliations in order to attract broader support" by saying, "It's like guerrilla warfare. If you reveal your location, all it does is allow your opponent to improve his artillery bearings. It's better to move quietly, with stealth, under cover of night. ... It comes down to whether you want to be the British army in the Revolutionary War or the Viet Cong. History tells us which tactic was more effective." From The Art of Political Warfare:
In the 1950s, GOP activist Stephen Shadegg explicitly followed Mao Zedong's "cell group" model. Just as Mao's cells would lay the basis for guerrilla warfare, so Shadegg's cells would quietly build support for his candidates apart from formal political organizations. "The individuals we enlisted became a secret weapon possessing strength, mobility and real impact," Shadegg wrote. "They were able to infiltrate centers of opposition support, keep us informed of opposition tactics, disseminate information, enlist other supporters and to do all these things completely unnoticed by the opposition. In the early 1990s, local affiliates of the Christian Coalition sometimes backed "stealth candidates" for local office who would downplay their affiliations in order to attract broader support. Ralph Reed, longtime director of the Christian Coalition, once summed up the value of the quiet approach: "It's like guerrilla warfare. If you reveal your location, all it does is allow your opponent to improve his artillery bearings. It's better to move quietly, with stealth, under cover of night. ... It comes down to whether you want to be the British army in the Revolutionary War or the Viet Cong. History tells us which tactic was more effective." (The Art of Political Warfare, University of Oklahoma Press, 2000).
Reed has repeatedly appeared on Fox News. According to a search of Nexis for "Ralph Reed," he has appeared on Fox News at least four times in 2009, most recently on the August 17 edition of Hannity.
Bush recommended Mao bio to adviser Karl Rove
Rove: President Bush "encouraged me to read a Mao biography." From Rove's December 26, 2008, Wall Street Journal column:
With only five days left, my lead is insurmountable. The competition can't catch up. And for the third year in a row, I'll triumph. In second place will be the president of the United States. Our contest is not about sports or politics. It's about books.
It all started on New Year's Eve in 2005. President Bush asked what my New Year's resolutions were. I told him that as a regular reader who'd gotten out of the habit, my goal was to read a book a week in 2006. Three days later, we were in the Oval Office when he fixed me in his sights and said, "I'm on my second. Where are you?" Mr. Bush had turned my resolution into a contest.
By coincidence, we were both reading Doris Kearns Goodwin's "Team of Rivals." The president jumped to a slim early lead and remained ahead until March, when I moved decisively in front. The competition soon spun out of control. We kept track not just of books read, but also the number of pages and later the combined size of each book's pages -- its "Total Lateral Area."
We recommended volumes to each other (for example, he encouraged me to read a Mao biography; I suggested a book on Reconstruction's unhappy end). We discussed the books and wrote thank-you notes to some authors.
God bless you, Glenn Beck... ;>)
We have to stop catering to the stupidest amongst us. Let the simple minds argue the nonsense - about you cannot ever say there is anything to be learned from Hitler or Mao. Or that Obama is violating the Constitution by accepting the Peace Prize. Or that the healthcare debate is about death panels. Or that left wing progessives are marxists/fascists/communists like Rockefeller (look at the ART!).
We have to get back to some kind of intelligent debate in this country. Let the slow kids sit at the kids table and debate who loves America the mostest and bestest. Let them decide who gets to go steady with their country - I would like to keep improving my country, not hump it. Let the adults have some serious, rational dialogue that every vibrant democratic republic needs continuously.
What's that loud spinning noise from the vicinity of Phoenix?
* Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.
o Said in November 1994, as quoted in John Dean, Conservatives Without Conscience (2006)
* When you say "radical right" today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party away from the Republican Party, and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye.
* The big thing is to make this country, along with every other country in the world with a few exceptions, quit discriminating against people just because they're gay. You don't have to agree with it, but they have a constitutional right to be gay. And that's what brings me into it.
* Having spent 37 years of my life in the military as a reservist, and never having met a gay in all of that time, and never having even talked about it in all those years, I just thought, why the hell shouldn't they serve? They're American citizens. As long as they're not doing things that are harmful to anyone else... So I came out for it.
and about him:
* Think of a senator winning the Democratic nomination in the year 2000 whose positions included halving the military budget, socializing the medical system, re-regulating the communications and electrical industries, establishing a guaranteed minimum income for all Americans, and equalizing funding for all schools regardless of property valuations — and who promised to fire Alan Greenspan, counseled withdrawal from the World Trade Organization, and, for good measure, spoke warmly of adolescent sexual experimentation. He would lose in a landslide. He would be relegated to the ash heap of history. But if the precedent of 1964 were repeated, two years later the country would begin electing dozens of men and women just like him. And not many decades later, Republicans would have to proclaim softer versions of those positions to get taken seriously for their party’s nomination.
o Rick Perlstein in Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus (2001)
I'm amazed how many right wingers look back fondly on the WWII era ( when our public higher education system was more socialized, the gap between the rich and poor was much less pronounced, and there was a significant Union membership and a solid middle class)but somehow are confused enough to support the modern GOP agenda.
Is it any wonder the right wing puppetmasters need to constantly scream about Obama "tearing the country down" and " changing the fabric of America"? They're afraid some of the brighter rightys might notice that liberal policies are geared toward the sort of society that was in place when America was, in spite of many problems even at that time, seen as much greater than we are now.
Impeach Obama Fruitcake Senior Citizen Redneck.org
It's pretty sad to see groups like this trying to scam money playing to peoples ignorance, fears and prejudices.
I responded to Beck's original attack on Dunn in another post, before I saw that MMFA had put this one up. I linked to a Salon article about rightwing Christianist (and some "moderate") politicians who have a well-hidden love afair with the tactics of all the monsters of the 20th and 21st centuries. I think it's relevant and more current than what's on here. I'd be interested in hearing what you think. I believe the link is already off the home page, but should come up on the first mmtv archive page.
Actually I'm not only uncivilized, I'm semi-computer-illiterate. I tried to cut and paste, but it didn't work.
Here you go.
You should re-review what Ms. Dunn said and how that was different from what Mr. Rove said the president suggested. One said that Mao was one of her favorite philosphers, which to me means she likes the thinking behind what drove his actions. The other suggested that he read a biography about Mao. Pretty different to most people who try to be honest.
Glenn Beck is only providing the facts for everyone to review and make their own decisions on. Show me an administration that has had more communist, radical, and weird idiots in the staff and I will show you Jimmy Carter.
You at Media Matters are nothing but a propagandizing arm of the EXTREMELY LEFT WING conspiracy theorist. Is George SOROS a citizen of this country? Prove it.
Failing to provide full info is just as detrimental, if not more so, than actual lying or failing to provide any info! You can lead people to believe that they've gotten all the info they need to come to a conclusion, when you really haven't.
This is one of those occasions. Failing to denounce conservatives in a similar way shows Beck to be a hypocrite. Failing to inform his audience that lots of conservatives have made similar comments will lead his viewers to make incorrect conclusions about the kinds of people who might cite Mao, Lenin, or the Viet Cong!!!! And that's relevant info!!!!!!!!
George Soros has nothing to do with this posting. The fact that you think it appropriate to bring up here clearly shows us that you aren't willing to have a fair discussion of the topic at hand. Thanks for showing us your true colors in what is likely your first post here. Lurker trolls and concern trolls are much more offensive than just plain jane bigoted trolls.
By that reasoning, are we wrong to use the Russian ejection seat design on the joint strike fighter just because it was originally a product of Soviet engineering?
But take those two statements, which sound like great stretches to you and me, change the tone a little bit and you'll have an instant topic for Beck's next show.
Mao had repeatedly, from the mid-1920s, bucked the tide of conventional wisdom among his comrades. Despite many setbacks, he had succeeded repeatedly. He was smart, tough, ruthless and his overwhelming self-confidence was built upon that solid ground, not some wimpy "follow your dreams" exhortation. He could say "you fight your war, I'll fight mine" when you or I would have had no business making such an assertion.
Our politicans are sworn to uphold and defend the constitution of the US,unless you have proof of them not doing this your attacks and accusations are BS and meant to distract and deligitimize a constitutionally elected Democrat.
You speak of upholding the constitution out of one side of your mouth yet reject the results of it's practice and plot ways to overrule it. You did it with Bill Clinton and now your trying it Barack Obama with the extra question of race mixed in. The issue isn't about Anita Dunn or wheather shes a communist . We saw the options the last election. We heard what Sarah Palin said about Obama,it's no different than what you guys are saying now. Pals around with terrorist,socialist,Kenyan blah,blah,blah,. We won and resoundly. The democractic process worked a testimonial to the greatnest of our constitution and form of government. With more people and greater cross section of society voting than ever been seen in the history of this country,with President Obama receiving more votes than any canidate in the history of our presidential elections. No this isn't about some commie in government this is about a segment of sore losers being mislead by demagogues trying to overturn a election they lost. So excuse me if i don't fall for she's a commie BS.
Is there anything less relevant to the discussion than stuff that happened in 1950? Besides the majority of the 'proletariat crap' that media matters (for very little) tries to use to misdirect attention away from the lefty radicals found within this putrid administration.
She described Mao as one of her two favorite political philosophers! She denigrates Mother Theresa by linking her with a murderous thug, one of many leftist/fascist/socialist thugs that have proven their worthlessness over the years. To actually say anything about Mao to high school graduates to 'think outside the box' is horrendous and only capable of someone who actually believes that Mao's philosophy has value. It's just another sign of how lefties show their stripes by who they align with, what they espouse and who they reference as great leaders. This is just pathetic.
But not to worry, mm(fvl) has already lined up documentation, probably from wikpedia, on how Lincoln once wore a pillow case over his head playing a ghost on Halloween and thereby did two things. One, prove that every republican to follow has to aligned with the klan and two, attempt to give cover to any more of Obama's comrades who turn out to be lefty radicals.
Your attempts at discussion often begins with a lame attempt to say I'm off topic. That comment is usually soon followed with the final argument that clearly demonstrates the depth of the intellectual vapidity of the left. Something along the lines of. "Well you're just an idiot." Hey, you already jumped that one to the head of the line!)
What's in the middle are found the inane reactionary lines like, "You are nothing but a lap dog for Rush.", or "You are a racist.". Certainly nothing like a debate is pursued but rather opportunity to engage in dance where the belief system of the lefties is denied (Few here admit to socialist tendencies or the radical lefty tilt of this administration) either in practice of the policies of today's democrat party or in the innate 'goodness of the leaders' in the government we have now.
Nonetheless, I will try and debate, sigh, and ask what did I miss in mm's(fvl) blog or in any of the follow up comments posted? I think that believing that referencing some comments made in the 50's or statements that are equally as dated and obscure that in no way elevates Mao as worthy of inspiring anything is a weak attempt at deflection of attention away from another lefty in this administration.
Mind you her comments were made just 5 months ago, to high school graduates about making choices? Why not find a somewhat less reprehensible world leader like Churchill, FDR or Kennedy? No, in her frame of reference Mao is quite acceptable even admired as a favorite philosopher. At best she is a moron, at worst(at least from my perspective) she is just another reminder of what type of person the president chooses to represent his administration.
Glenn Beck is throwing a hissy fit (comparable to the emotional meltdown in your post) because Dunn dared to reference a commie as someone whose philosophy she admires.
MMFA asks if Beck will be consistent in his critiques, and documents examples of conservatives being influenced in some way by other "evil doers", with examples from the 1950s through this century.
PLease understand, when you began you post with;
I naturally made the assumption that you hadn't read the item. If you did read it, and are just starting the weekend happy hour early, or aren't bright enough to understand it, I'm sorry.
Sometimes laziness is hard to distinguish from stupidity.
Thanks for differentiating laziness and stupidity. Self analysis is always good for personal growth. I'm proud of the steps, albeit baby, that you are taking.
To believe that the dear chairman has anything of value to share with American youth is laughable. She didn't just, how exactly did you put it....admire his philosophy, she would consider him to be one of her favorites. Maybe even the top, given the evening gown part of the competition against Mother Theresa, since she discussed the dear leader of the people first in her helpful 'tips' to the graduates.
Now I'll give you that media matters (for very little) were nice enough to say that she didn't reference any of those..ah... unpleasant atrocities. Well whoop de doo!
But my captain, my captain,...what about Mao and his philosophy is admirable? That he murdered about 70 million of his own people? Starved them because of his communist polices destroying agriculture? Had them beaten, imprisoned and killed by those swell guys in the Red Guard leading the cultural revolution? Does she admire his.....methodology of viewing people as chattel, even dreaming the dream of holocaust? Was it his ability to organize those fine, upstanding students to cleanse the 'old' in the chinese populace that she wanted to show the students what she admired? For her, like any leftist, it is simply a part of her 'normal' world view to see lefty tyrants like Mao as worthy of admiration.
As far as Beck defending such and such, I know of Nordquist but the others have no meaning for me. I would certainly not bring them up as part of any speech that I might give. But you need to understand that we do admire the philosophy of conservatism. The idea of America was based upon the individual freedom that I believe mirrors closely conservatism.
The left on the other hand, considers philosophy and personality to be wedded to each other. Think about it, what's wrong with early America, that the ideals of government were created by those white guys that were slave owners...therefore nothing about this place is good. And with socialism/progressivism, the personality of the leader embodies the philosophy. Stalin, Castro, Chavez, Mao, and any other thug of the left becomes the face of the philosophy. The result of commune is always a leader that demands loyalty from it's members. However, with conservatism, it is the philosophy of freedom that drives it.
I know that Beck has commented about the failings of our heroes, but the obscurity of what mm(fvl) referenced is nowhere near the mainstream of conservatism and these guys don't embody conservatism. But, I'll give you that if one of them stood up and praised someone who murdered millions because of their agreement with philosophy, we probably would publicly rebuke them. Question is though, why can't the lefties here rebuke someone who admires a murdering thug who is evidently one of like mind? Hmmmmm?
Speaking truth to/about progressives
Then: "Think about it, what's wrong with early America, that the ideals of government were created by those white guys that were slave owners...therefore nothing about this place is good."
But before: "what about Mao and his philosophy is admirable? That he murdered about 70 million of his own people? Starved them because of his communist polices destroying agriculture? Had them beaten, imprisoned and killed by those swell guys in the Red Guard leading the cultural revolution? Does she admire his.....methodology of viewing people as chattel, even dreaming the dream of holocaust?" etc.
Those of us on the left are no more complicit in equating personality and philosophy than those on the right. In fact, I would argue entirely otherwise: with Obama, there may have been a cult of personality, but this was in large part because those of us he mobilized see him as sharing both something of our dreams for America, in terms of content and in terms of rhetoric. But most of us can differentiate between content and form, whereas for the eight years which preceded, there was such a disconnect between the reality of the world and the rhetoric the GOP used to describe it-- saying we're the ones conflating personality and philosophy is to willfully ignore the situation.
We are the keepers of free speech. Think of the ACLU. We are the ones who defend wretched people the rights to say what they will because we hold that they have that right, just as we do. Think of Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, all those people who make unsubstantiated claims and false statements and then shut off the mics of those who try to rebut the content of their remarks.
This is just plain absurd. It has nothing to do with the substance of the situation and is a cheap ploy to distract Americans by riling up some nutwingers who have no incentive to actually think through these problems.
If not, then not to worry, you've given your stamp of approval for Dunn and can officially call yourself a 'speech czar'!
Speaking truth to/about progressives
You can't have it both ways. Its alright to admire or study one facet of a "murdering dictator" dealing with guerrilla tactics, but not for Dunn to speak on how he came to power? It was ok when Gingrich and Rove talked about studying and admiring Mao, but becuase of WHERE Dunn spoke about Mao is what you have a problem with? Or is it just because Beck told you to be mad about it?
Clarify that for me, would you?
And I really like how you turned and started labeling me right off the bat. "Speech czar?" Really? Just because I pointed out a fact and asked a simple question, you are judging me? That is the problem with the extremes on both sides. Quick to label and call names without even knowing the facts of what or who you are talking about.
I would love to hear whether or not you agree with these words, "fake"liberal. What is it about these words that scares you so much? Is it just the word Mao? Or is it the philosophy itself? Or is it showing the similiarities between Mother Theresa and Mao when it comes to making your own way in life?
You do know that is the point, right? That even Mao and Mother Theresa both agree that you have to make your own way in the world. See how it has added power when people from completely different ends of the spectrum who achieved great successes in their own lives agree that you have to be a leader not a follower? Do you not see this? Are you that much of a follower that you are this out of touch with basic philosophies on life? Are high school graduates this far ahead of you in life?
Thank you for putting the underlying beliefs of leftyism full frontal for all to view..... No such thing as moral context with you guys, nope, nada, zip. Why certainly amorality is the way!!!
Speaking truth to/about progressives....and moral eunuchs.
You do realize that you are the one refusing to apply context (moral or otherwise) to anything, don't you? That you are failing to discern context at even an elementary level. By your logic Mao=Bad therefore Anything Mao Ever Said or Did=Bad. I bet you killed on the SATs with those kind of anti-intellectual deductions. You also purposefully completely failed to answer the question. What is about the quote that makes you wet your pants?
'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.' - Dunn
All reasonable adults can easily discern the fact that she was purposefully referring to both Mao and Mother Theresa as an irony. That is why she made the joke about them being the philosophers she always turn to for these answers. A joke which the students clearly got and you clearly did not. Her point was that it is remarkable that these two historical figures who are so different (one a leader of a successful, violent uprising - the other a successful pacifist advocate for the poor) can agree on certain roads to success. This being the idea that to be a groudbreaking leader you have to be willing to break new ground. Be a leader not a follower. Do you understand it any better now?
Can you even read the quote without shivering in fright? Why are you so afraid of your own shadow? It is time to man up, change your diapers, and participate in the adult dialogue taking place all around you if you really wanna show some "pride" in the grand idea that became the United States of America.
What if she spoke about Hitler making great points about community organizing? Pol Pot about clearing the population of any educated people? Or Castro on his ability to make decisions to imprison his population?
Buster, it's one thing to know about Mao, it's another to have an affinity for him. You are too dense to see that it is all about morality and what guides you. I know about Mao and leftists because I know evil, but I have no moral desire to elevate them in any fashion.
I imagine the adults in the room would consider her analogy on its merits and in context and you would scream, pull the blanker up over your face, and wet your pants AGAIN.
I, and like most conservatives, barked a lot about how we were spending during the years of his presidency. Just like the dems have done historically, the repubs lost their way in Washington, enamored with power, figured that we could afford any level of spending.
He was great at fighting terrorists and terrorism and keeping us safe, but he buckled under and didn't stop the things that conservatives wished he had, spending, campaign reform and not lowering taxes. Instead we had a financial meltdown that he tried to stop, but he and other reformers in congress were unwilling to stand up against the dems and the travesty of fannie mae and freddie mac because of the fears of being called racists. He allowed Ted Kennedy to write the No child left behind act when instead he should have given more rights for parents to seek a quality education for their children.
Our debt was sold to china and the soros's of the world looking to manipulate further devalue our money and foolishly added to the mistake by 'bailing out' entities that needed to fail or revive through bankruptcy.
Outie, we were yelling but the GOP wanted to go liberal to be liked and lost it's way. Let's hope that the Jindal's and Palin's continue to come forth to answer the call of conservatism in this county being sounded loudly by groups like the Tea Party. Here's to finding conservatives, not necessarily republicans, to fill those seats in the house, senate and state offices!!
Speaking truth to/about progressives
http://www.c4strategies.com/ImpeachObama/impeachhe.html
I believe there's an asterisk next to that stat. You know, the biggest intelligence/defense funk-up in our country's history? Remember, the worst terror attack ever, about eight years ago?
Blah blah blah, excuses for Bush, playing the race card card, you were shouting, bs,bs,bs...
then..
Let's hope that the Jindal's and Palin's continue to come forth to answer the call of conservatism...
I'm with ya there, PC. Losers on deck, and their base is quickly dying off. Keep 'em coming.
As for our teams, if Venezulamerica is your goal, you got your man!!!
Speaking truth to/about progressives
Communion------commune----communism----community---community organizer----commie....YIKES ! Another commie plot exposed.
Yet another thing they share in common- their visual likeness has been used !! Try to say that about any right wingers.
She's quite the detective.
What has not worked still does not work, looking to the Federal Government to solve our community problems is like looking to God to score the winning touchdown for our favorite football team. When he takes my side your side looses.
Over time we have created Federal officials to the extreme outer sectors and placed them into office to try and solve our problems These fools have passed laws that destroy our ability to solve community problems.
You can not legislate Prosperity, Morality, or Health. These are issues of the individual. Choices of those who are living the conditions. There is no fix all methods.
The problems of the big Cities are not the problems of the small rural towns. Each is in need of specific solutions. Remove the power of the community to repair it's problems and you expand the problem. Stability does not come from huge corporations who seek only to grow their profit base. They will leave you for greener pastures with out a thought. We need to invest in communities with small stable businesses and strengthen our people by growing our smallness not our vast empires.
This is the true debate and it is time to get off the wagon of deception and onto the stability cart.
Fist off "we were yelling". We? You yelling at your TV is not the general subject matter on this forum. My "we" means the media. And by "not a peep" means not a peep from the right wing media via Rush etc. "The Debt" was sold off to China mainly off the radar at the time so Bush could bait and switch the conservative axiom of less taxes (for the rich) equaling smaller government. In Bush's case that was a total confidence scam. Lowering the tax base lead to huge borrowing from China to keep the conservative illusion alive not to mention two wars and "off the books" funding and privatization of war related infrastructure. All to add to the illusion of "less government." Remember the call by Bush for America to "keep shopping". That was code for "hey by the way China is going to be importing a ton of crap so please buy it to keep our new landlords happy." Wink wink. Oh and now the rubber stamp Ripofagians were acting to much like liberals at this time? So it's really their fault? And the never ending all mighty evil genius Soros again? Sorry that might get traction on a Little Green Foot and No Balls site.
Rush was all over Bush and the republicans for the spending. And in Pittsburgh, Quinn was warning the party to stay focused on conservatism. If you ever listened, you would have heard and understood that. Unfortunately, the GOP thought that liberal policies were the way to be liked, and they payed. Let's hope they see what the 9-12er's and Tea Party members are asking them to do. We need to change the guard in 2010.
Speaking truth to/about progressives
And somehow, they're able to fool these suckers into believing that Repubs have been fiscally responsible in the past, and the Dems haven't routinely fixed the economic disasters caused by the GOPpers.
Here is what he actually said...So, the reason why this phone hasn't run all week is because the most important political philosopher for her is Mao Zedong -- oh, and Mother Teresa. The guy responsible for more deaths than any other 20th-century leader is her favorite philosopher? How can that man be your favorite anything?
I remember when Clinton ran for pres and the dems said that Clinton's actions dodging the draft were a 30 year old issue that didn't matter. Of course they them proceded to go back 30 years to critcise Bush's NG record. Isn't it amazing how MMFA can go back 50 years to cite comments made by repubs . Seems like a perfect example of hypocricy to me.
Welcome to the democratic party.
And I guess you do not understand sarcasm.
And that isn't linking...how, exactly?
One thing you conservatives seem to keep forgetting is that political ideology and philosophy are two different things. If xhe had said it was Plato, would you complain less? No, because Plato spoke in fables, many of which advocate sharing, a *GASP!* Communist idea! Well, then by God, we need to protest Sesame Street!
Oh, and notice that it is perfectly acceptable for Republicans to dig back over 30 yrs., but when a Democrat does it, it's somehow wrong.
Welcome to Jack Abramoff's Conservative Movement. We're never wrong, even when we are.
Just the moral equivalence of linking Mao with Mother Teresa should be enough to make a civilized person vomit. Obama's administration is filled with incompetent, brutish, amateurish admirers of thugs. What a proud day for America!
MMFA provided examples from the 50s through this decade.Between the two of you (assuming you're not one moron and his sock puppet)you couldn't figure that out?
Or have you been programmed to focus on the oldest item, just as you were hypnotized into crying over the one racist Rush Limbaugh quote that wasn't captured on tape and verified?
If anything, I'd say it might be more acceptable to look objectively at Mao's philosophy as the atrocities become more distant.
It's difficult for me to believe that you're two separate posters. The odds of two people, even two very stupid people, being confused in the exact same way is mind boggling.
Can you provide evidence of either of the following:
1. Comments attributed to Rush, but not proven, that I have accepted.
2. Criminal behavior by ACORN, that I have seen with own my eyes (and seen with my own ears , if I'm going to join you in Crazytown)for which I have given them "the benefit of the doubt". By criminal behavior, I'm assuming you mean some crime has been proven. If by "benmefit of the doubt" you mean that I consider people innocent until proven guilty, then I guess you can just call me an American.
Maybe you should change your name to "mushroom".
You obviously believe that those unverified quotes are accurate.
Where do you get the idea that I believe they're accurate? How did you reach the conclusion that it's "obvious" that I believe something that I've never said or implied??