Obama's [former] Comm. Director Anita Dunn Praises Mao as a Hero, a role model for all Americans!

Originally posted by mobiusmale

Originally posted by vkey08
reply to post by Vitruvian

 

...got it now? She has as much right to spout out her opinion as you do..

Very true. But the real point here is that the ear that is hearing her spout these opinions...and he seems to value her views (or he wouldn't keep her around)...is one Barrack Obama.

What does it say about the man, given he has requested an avowed disciple of Mao to coach him on his debate on foreign policy?

She can say and think whatever she wants...of course...but what is concerning is that Obama is actually listening, and seeking out her counsel.

And please allow this - HERE from the same site earlier quoted by this OP

You may remember Anita Dunn. She’s the former White House staffer who said this to a group of high schoolers in June 2009:

Anita Dunn said that Mao Zedong – Chinese communist dictator, murderer of 45 million of his own people during the Great Leap Forward and at least 65 million people overall, the man behind the creation of the giant gulag that is North Korea, the evil monster behind the wipeout of his nation’s intelligentsia, the disgusting creature who passed 50 million Chinese through Soviet-style gulags – is one of her two “favorite political philosophers.” Not Aristotle. Not Plato. Not John Locke. Not Thomas Jefferson. Not even Bill Clinton or Karl Marx.

Mao Zedong indeed - And this is the person Obama chose to train him for his foreign policy debate next Monday. Apparently Baghdad Bob wasn’t available.

When Dunn’s Mao speech was reported back in 2009, the Obama administration claimed Dunn was joking. Or that she was being ironic. The video clearly shows otherwise.

Dunn, the White House communications director at the beginning of Obama’s term, was one of Obama’s most controversial advisors. She attacked Fox News as “opinion journalism masquerading as news” while appearing on CNN. She dismissed both Bill Ayers and ACORN as non-stories. After Glenn Beck ran the video of Dunn talking about Mao in an October 2009 broadcast, she left the White House in November 2009.

Now she’s back. Just in time to walk Obama through his answers on foreign policy. How fitting for a woman who says that one of her two favorite political philosophers is Mao Zedung to be advising a president who has made our economy and foreign policy largely subject to the whims of communist China.

UPDATE on BHO's involvement with RADICAL - Marxist/Communist's, and Islamic radicals who share the same bed as well............a confirmation of the deadly seriousness of the extremely radical agenda Obama would have in store for America during the next four years IF (and its a BIG IF) he gets the chance.

A Red Carpet for Radicals at the White House

by Steve Emerson and John Rossomando
IPT News
October 21, 2012

First paragraph:

A year-long investigation by the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) has found that scores of known radical Islamists made hundreds of visits to the Obama White House, meeting with top administration officials.

Court documents and other records have identified many of these visitors as belonging to groups serving as fronts for the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and other Islamic militant organizations.

The IPT made the discovery combing through millions of White House visitor log entries. IPT compared the visitors' names with lists of known radical Islamists. Among the visitors were officials representing groups which have:

Been designated by the Department of Justice as unindicted co-conspirators in terrorist trials; Extolled Islamic terrorist groups including Hamas and Hizballah;
Obstructed terrorist investigations by instructing their followers not to cooperate with law enforcement;
Promoted the incendiary conspiratorial allegation that the United States is engaged in a "war against Islam"— a leading tool in recruiting Muslims to carry out acts of terror;
Repeatedly claimed that many of the Islamic terrorists convicted since 9-11 were framed by the U.S government as part of an anti-Muslim profiling campaign.

Originally posted by mobiusmale

Originally posted by vkey08
reply to post by Vitruvian

 

...got it now? She has as much right to spout out her opinion as you do..

Very true.

But the real point here is that the ear that is hearing her spout these opinions...and he seems to value her views (or he wouldn't keep her around)...is one Barrack Obama.

What does it say about the man, given he has requested an avowed disciple of Mao to coach him on his debate on foreign policy?

She can say and think whatever she wants...of course...but what is concerning is that Obama is actually listening, and seeking out her counsel.

My problem is that it is a slippery slope to start upon, starting to tell people who they can and cannot associate with... When that right, the right to free speech and freedom of idea gets silenced, even by this discussion, then it just cascades...

(and to reiterate my point noone gets I HATE OBAMA......there)

Originally posted by vkey08

Originally posted by mobiusmale

Originally posted by vkey08
reply to post by Vitruvian

 

...got it now? She has as much right to spout out her opinion as you do..

Very true.

But the real point here is that the ear that is hearing her spout these opinions...and he seems to value her views (or he wouldn't keep her around)...is one Barrack Obama.

What does it say about the man, given he has requested an avowed disciple of Mao to coach him on his debate on foreign policy?

She can say and think whatever she wants...of course...but what is concerning is that Obama is actually listening, and seeking out her counsel.

My problem is that it is a slippery slope to start upon, starting to tell people who they can and cannot associate with... When that right, the right to free speech and freedom of idea gets silenced, even by this discussion, then it just cascades...

(and to reiterate my point noone gets I HATE OBAMA......there)

Your points that are insisting on making of this a "Freedom of Speech" issue are disingenuous - A RED HERRING - and you know it !!! They are false.....no one here is talking about anything even close to that notion of an abridgement of speech and/or assembly. We are describing here the kinds of nefarious people BHO associates with and brings into the WH - either as staff, cabinet level or in personal advisor-ships - particularly in the very nebulous area of Czar-ships - which are designed to circumvent Congress and the Constitution.

Obama and his re-election team are threatening the American society with riot and mayhem if BHO loses the election - they are deliberately spreading this awful fear-mongering propaganda as we speak.........THIS is what we are facing. The disenchanted within the ranks of Holder + BHO's New Black Panther Party, and many, many other very dangerous militant factions are threatening to incite a race war if Obama is not re-elected. Problem is - they are being encouraged to do so and there is there are no active political voices within the Obama administration that seem willing to quit them down. Holder/BHO also support the Chicago based Muslim Minister Farrakhan - surreptitiously of course. They have a long history of mutual cooperation and admiration for one another working through the auspices of Jeremiah Wright - pastor of the Trinity Church - CHICAGO.

Watch the video: MOST ESPECIALLY THE 2ND HALF that begins with the threats from Farrakhan at about the 15 min. mark. Frightening stuff there.......!!!

Continuation on the above postings regarding threats to Mitt Romney should he win the election. To read the many ominous Tweets - please click the link...........

Obama Supporters Continue Threats To Riot, Assassinate Romney
Secret Service attention fails to dampen violent Twitter comments
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
October 23, 2012

Despite the issue garnering a significant amount of media interest as well as the attention of the Secret Service, Obama supporters continued their threats to riot and assassinate Mitt Romney if Obama loses in the aftermath of last night’s presidential debate.
As we reported last week, Twitter has been flooded recently with violent comments from Obama supporters. The increase in volume of the comments seemed to coincide with Romney’s poll numbers edging higher against Obama.
Not only have Obama voters been making open threats that they will riot and cause mayhem, they have also been caught making direct threats to assassinate Mitt Romney, prompting the Secret Service to announce that it was “aware” of the threats and would “conduct appropriate follow up if necessary.”
Despite the fact that the media reported extensively on threats made against Obama prior to the 2008 election, their silence on the threats made against Romney has been deafening. Indeed, the act of a few old guys hanging up empty chairs in reference to Clint Eastwood’s RNC speech garnered substantially more coverage and concern from the press compared to hundreds if not thousands of tweets threatening violence against Mitt Romney.
Americans who simply display political signs expressing opposition to Obama’s policies have been treated as potential violent threats by authorities in the past, and yet not a single Twitter user has faced retribution for making direct and sometimes graphic death threats against Romney.
Leftists routinely cry foul and attempt to demonize conservatives as violent extremists whenever online rhetoric gets heated, and yet when their own engage in even worse conduct, their behavior is absolved and the media is disinterested.
Before the Secret Service announced they were investigating the threats, Obama front group Think Progress attempted to imply that the whole story was somehow a racist contrivance dreamed up by the Drudge Report and Infowars.
Here are just a selection of tweets from Obama supporters threatening riots and violence during and after last night’s foreign policy debate. There are too many to reprint in full.
If the Secret Service does plan on following this up, they are going to be very busy indeed.

reply to post by Vitruvian


Yes you are... plain and simple you are trying to tell Barack who he can and cannot talk to or associate with.. Just because you dont' agree with the woman doesn't mean that you have the right to tell Obama he can't go to her for advice.. it's that simple..

Originally posted by vkey08
reply to post by Vitruvian

 

Yes you are... plain and simple you are trying to tell Barack who he can and cannot talk to or associate with.. Just because you dont' agree with the woman doesn't mean that you have the right to tell Obama he can't go to her for advice.. it's that simple..

I stand by my knowledge of the situation................Vitruvuan quote

Your points that are insisting on making of this a "Freedom of Speech" issue are disingenuous - A RED HERRING - and you know it !!! They are false.....no one here is talking about anything even close to that notion of an abridgement of speech and/or assembly. We are describing here the kinds of nefarious people BHO associates with and brings into the WH - either as staff, cabinet level or in personal advisor-ships - particularly in the very nebulous area of Czar-ships - which are designed to circumvent Congress and the Constitution.

I mean no offence to any Christians here, this is an observation. Right wingers always court Christians and support Christian values, they vilify Marxism and Socialism as one of the main evils in the world, and Godless, but if you look at Christ and his teachings, helping the poor, his attitude to money Lenders, his healing of the sick, for free, (free healthcare) he was for all intents and purposes...wait for it...a Socialist.

:-)

In my opinion, this is silly and really a none issue.

She is not praising the murderous actions of Moa. She is not praising the fact that he killed so many. She is not praising the dictatorship.

What she is saying is that people should not allow themselves to be trapped into a specific mindset because others say it can not be done. She is praising the ability to think outside the box, set goals, and then achieve them no matter what obstacles stand in your way.

Had she not used Moa as an example, no one would take issue with the message.

Originally posted by MrWendal


Had she not used Moa as an example, no one would take issue with the message.

Duhhhhhhhhhhh No Kidding!!!

Originally posted by Vitruvian
Duhhhhhhhhhhh No Kidding!!!

Clearly you missed my point entirely. Maybe you should be "duuuuhhhh"ing yourself.

Your complete misunderstanding of what the women is saying is obviously lost on you, even though I pointed it out clearly.

Point being, it is not about Moa the Dictator- it is about thinking outside the box and not allowing obstacles and what others say is impossible stop one from accomplishing their goals. That idea is admirable.

So please explain what about that message is so negative?

Instead you choose to focus on Moa the Dictator instead of the message behind what is being said.

Get it now Genius?

Are you aware that President Bush cited Mao's biography as one of his favorite books?

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).

online.wsj.com...

That damn Maoist!!

And YES...he was political pilosopher...Since you chose Wiki to try to show otherwise, I'll do the obvious and provide you with the first sentence of his Wiki entry...

Mao Zedong (also transliterated as Mao Tse-tung listen (help·info)), commonly referred to as Chairman Mao (December 26, 1893 – September 9, 1976), was a Chinese communist revolutionary, political theorist and politician.

Originally posted by Indigo5
Are you aware that President Bush cited Mao's biography as one of his favorite books?

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).

online.wsj.com...

That damn Maoist!!

And YES...he was political pilosopher...Since you chose Wiki to try to show otherwise, I'll do the obvious and provide you with the first sentence of his Wiki entry...

Mao Zedong (also transliterated as Mao Tse-tung listen (help·info)), commonly referred to as Chairman Mao (December 26, 1893 – September 9, 1976), was a Chinese communist revolutionary,

political theorist

and politician.

edit on 23-10-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

Stop BS ing us here at ATS - the argument is about Mao NOT BEING A POLITICAL PHILOSOPHER and not about him as a POLITICAL THEORIST

I personally doubt that he was even a "theorist" - he was a DICTATOR AND A MURDERER

reply to post by Vitruvian


I would suggest that you read the book titled " Political philosophy: from Plato to Mao" by Martin Cohen, who is a philosopher himself.

Originally posted by lewman
reply to post by Vitruvian

 

I would suggest that you read the book titled " Political philosophy: from Plato to Mao" by Martin Cohen, who is a philosopher himself.

Maoism is a political theory and represents a ruthless and dictatorial, murderous ideology

derived from the teachings of the Chinese political leader Mao Zedong (1893–1976). Its followers, known as Maoists, consider it as an anti-Revisionist form of Marxism-Leninism. Developed during the 1950s and 1960s, it was widely applied as the political and military guiding ideology of the Communist Party of China (CPC).

Maoism sees the agrarian peasantry, rather than the working class, as the key revolutionary force which can fundamentally transform capitalist society towards socialism. Holding that "all political power proceeds from the barrel of a gun,"[citation needed] Maoist organizations mainly draw upon Mao's ideology of the People's War, mobilizing large parts of rural populations to revolt against established institutions by engaging in guerrilla warfare.

REPEAT - Maoism is a political theory and an ideology and NOT a legitimate political philosophy.

Originally posted by Vitruvian

Originally posted by lewman
reply to post by Vitruvian

 

I would suggest that you read the book titled " Political philosophy: from Plato to Mao" by Martin Cohen, who is a philosopher himself.

Maoism is a political theory and represents a ruthless and dictatorial, murderous ideology

derived from the teachings of the Chinese political leader Mao Zedong (1893–1976). Its followers, known as Maoists, consider it as an anti-Revisionist form of Marxism-Leninism. Developed during the 1950s and 1960s, it was widely applied as the political and military guiding ideology of the Communist Party of China (CPC).

Maoism sees the agrarian peasantry, rather than the working class, as the key revolutionary force which can fundamentally transform capitalist society towards socialism. Holding that "all political power proceeds from the barrel of a gun,"[citation needed] Maoist organizations mainly draw upon Mao's ideology of the People's War, mobilizing large parts of rural populations to revolt against established institutions by engaging in guerrilla warfare.

REPEAT - Maoism is a political theory and an ideology and NOT a legitimate political philosophy.

edit on 23-10-2012 by Vitruvian because: txt

reply to post by Vitruvian


You have given a quote from a random website( that hasn't been linked and doesn't have the name of the person who wrote it), that doesn't even dispute the FACT that Mao was a politial philosopher. My question is why? And how does this strengthen your argument against my fact based argument?


I would also like to give a little bit of off site information from a UK website that caters to those in school or other forms of education, regarding our discussion on Hitler.

In Mein Kampf Hitler outlined his political philosophy. He argued that the German (he wrongly described them as the Aryan race) was superior to all others. "Every manifestation of human culture, every product of art, science and technical skill, which we see before our eyes today, is almost exclusively the product of Aryan creative power."

www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk...

and here is a few links showing who Martin Cohen the writer of " Political philosophy: from Plato to Mao" is.

www.philosophical-investigations.org...

www.the-philosopher.co.uk...

sourcewatch.org...

As well as your favourite wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org...(philosopher)

Anyway I am very grateful that you are now actually replying to my posts and not just hurling insults like yesterday.

reply to post by Vitruvian


Obama has an agenda that only he knows, and unfortunately the American people have no clue. But the communists that fully support his re-election certainly do! So I ask the American people, what is Obamas plan for the next 4 years? Has he told you?

Romney chides Obama for 'open mic' slip with Russia's Medvedev

The exchange, picked up by a White House pool of television journalists as well as Russian reporters, followed Obama's plea for "space," and went like this:

"I understand your message about space," replied Medvedev.

"This is my last election ... After my election I have more flexibility," Obama said, apparently confident of winning re-election.

"I will transmit this information to Vladimir," said Medvedev.

Romney called the whispered exchange "alarming and troubling."

Originally posted by lewman
[You have given a quote from a random website( that hasn't been linked and doesn't have the name of the person who wrote it), that doesn't even dispute the FACT that Mao was a politial philosopher. My question is why? And how does this strengthen your argument against my fact based argument -
Anyway I am very grateful that you are now actually replying to my posts and not just hurling insults like yesterday.

The quotes were from the same source as before - As for me replying to your posts........it was very painful to do so - believe me. I actually broke with my own usual rule of NEVER RESPONDING to uneducated defenders of the Marxists and/or defenders of dictators and communists..........be ashamed OK!!!

reply to post by Vitruvian


Uneducated Marxist or defender of dictators, where did you get that from?

I didn't ever give my opinion on Communism, Mao'ism or Nazizm, and I did a college course a couple of years ago that was a combination of sociology, politics and strangely enough, philosophy. Ok i admit it wasn't to degree level but it is education on the relative topic.

Maybe its time for you to bite the bullit and admit defeat on this debate as you quite clearly dont have a clue what a political philosopher is.

Good Night.