Proof that Hannity and Beck are not reliable journalists

[_richardMdBorn]

Well, what does "a fan of Mao" mean? Could such a person find some value in some of Mao's statements while abhorring his atrocities? If so, what would be objectionable about being "a fan of Mao"? Nothing in and of itself, I'd contend.

Would you appoint a person who said that Hitler or Stalin was one of her two favorite political philosophers to an post in a presidential administration. Mao murdered about 70 million people. What was admirable in Mao's political philosophy?

[_Calculus Crusader]

If you think that Anita Dunn is an actual Maoist, then you're an absolute moron. There's absolutely nothing in her political past to suggest that she's a revolutionary. The fact that she was on the Obama campaign (and remains in his administration) isn't evidence that there are revolutionaries in the administration; it's evidence against the idea that she's a revolutionary, because a revolutionary wouldn't tolerate using constitutional means to ascend to power.

By definition.

Everyone who's not a hack can see this, which explains why you're having trouble here.

Here's what happened: she tried to make a wry statement, and fumbled the delivery. If you want to take five words to indicate her political ideology more than her lifetime of work, then be my guest. But you should be aware that to do so would make you a dribbling idiot.

Junior, Richard did not say anything about her being a "revolutionary." Moreover, once Mao defeated the opposition and took over the Chinese government, he ceased being a revolutionary. If you don't get that, then you are an absolute moron. (Or, in other words, one of Obama's chamchas.)

[_richardMdBorn]

Junior, Richard did not say anything about her being a "revolutionary." Moreover, once Mao defeated the opposition and took over the Chinese government, he ceased being a revolutionary. If you don't get that, then you are an absolute moron. (Or, in other words, one of Obama's chamchas.)

Given that Obama's surrounded himself with radicals his whole life, it shouldn't surprise anyone that he has lots of radicals in his administration. And he's tried to censor discussions about his past. Examples of this are his campaign's outrageous attempts to prevent critics from appearing on Extension 720 on WGN radio in Chicago.

http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q ... dmMjVhMzE=

http://blogs.kansascity.com/tvbarn/2008 ... =131532824

[_JohnStuartMill]

If you think that Anita Dunn is an actual Maoist, then you're an absolute moron. There's absolutely nothing in her political past to suggest that she's a revolutionary. The fact that she was on the Obama campaign (and remains in his administration) isn't evidence that there are revolutionaries in the administration; it's evidence against the idea that she's a revolutionary, because a revolutionary wouldn't tolerate using constitutional means to ascend to power.

By definition.

Everyone who's not a hack can see this, which explains why you're having trouble here.

Here's what happened: she tried to make a wry statement, and fumbled the delivery. If you want to take five words to indicate her political ideology more than her lifetime of work, then be my guest. But you should be aware that to do so would make you a dribbling idiot.

Junior, Richard did not say anything about her being a "revolutionary." Moreover, once Mao defeated the opposition and took over the Chinese government, he ceased being a revolutionary. If you don't get that, then you are an absolute moron. (Or, in other words, one of Obama's chamchas.)

You're right that a Maoist in Maoist China is not properly considered a revolutionary. But unfortunately for your argument, we weren't talking about that -- we were talking about a (hypothetical) Maoist in capitalist America. Such a Maoist would certainly be a revolutionary, so Richard didn't have to use that word for me to correctly clobber him for it.

[_richardMdBorn]

If you think that Anita Dunn is an actual Maoist, then you're an absolute moron. There's absolutely nothing in her political past to suggest that she's a revolutionary. The fact that she was on the Obama campaign (and remains in his administration) isn't evidence that there are revolutionaries in the administration; it's evidence against the idea that she's a revolutionary, because a revolutionary wouldn't tolerate using constitutional means to ascend to power.

Hitler tolerated it. In fact, he took advantage of it. He was appointed Chancellor by Hindenberg on 30 January 1933. Do you think that Hitler was NOT a revolutionary?

[_JohnStuartMill]

Hitler was certainly not a revolutionary in the same sense in which Mao was. I don't think you have a good enough understanding of how the idea of revolution figures in Marxism/Maoism to fully understand why your allusion to Hitler is so inapt. But I don't feel like tutoring you on this particular point right now, so we're going to have to leave it at that for the time being.

[_richardMdBorn]

Hitler was certainly not a revolutionary in the same sense in which Mao was. I don't think you have a good enough understanding of how the idea of revolution figures in Marxism/Maoism to fully understand why your allusion to Hitler is so inapt. But I don't feel like tutoring you on this particular point right now, so we're going to have to leave it at that for the time being.

Since when do Marxists/Maoists decide what is and is not a revolution? Your basic point that "a revolutionary wouldn't tolerate using constitutional means to ascend to power" does not make sense. Why wouldn't revolutionaries will use ANY means to take power. Or to put it more the way I did, why wouldn't revolutionaries agree to participate in an administration where they would have influence.

[_zzyzx]

They are on KSL in Utah?

[_richardMdBorn]

Hitler was certainly not a revolutionary in the same sense in which Mao was. I don't think you have a good enough understanding of how the idea of revolution figures in Marxism/Maoism to fully understand why your allusion to Hitler is so inapt. But I don't feel like tutoring you on this particular point right now, so we're going to have to leave it at that for the time being.

I understand that Communists/Maoists think that the Nazis were not revolutionaries in their sense. They viewed the Nazis as a retrograde movement.

2 a : a sudden, radical, or complete change b : a fundamental change in political organization; especially : the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed c : activity or movement designed to effect fundamental changes in the socioeconomic situation

The Nazi movement was clearly revolutionary by this definition. Both Nazism and Maoism were totalitarian movements which killed a lot of people. Mao's Great Leap Forward killed about 30 million people and he killed about 70 million people between 1949 and 1976. That's an awful record and it is reasonable to be concerned about people in the Obama administration admiring Mao as a political philosopher.

[_Droopy]

Not true. The BBC is independent of gov't oversight and is administered by a trust specifically designed to keep it free from gov't influence. The BBC has a long history of disagreeing with current gov't policies without any kind of reprisa

Yes, which is why the BBC is the anti-Israel, Pro-Palestinian, and AGW news capital of Europe.