Anita Dunn…White House Advisor…Chairman Mao Fan…Fox News Hater…

She’s not human, and lizards have no souls.

On the other hand, She can catch flies with that tongue, while Obama can only knock them down with his hands, so there’s that…

Souless bitch.

Is it time to start up the bus for another midnight weekend resignation?

Don’t think of Mao as actually killing 70 million. He just threw them under the bus for the greater good. Kind of like her lord and master Obama tends to do with the politically inconvenient.

Truly, this is the kind of moral equivalence taught in classrooms today. No one who has been to college or the university in the last quarter century or so should be surprised.

Obama’s cabinet, his czars, his administration is full of these people. During the election I thought it was going to be bad if he won, but it is worse than I thought. This guy surrounds himself with these kind of people. They are all he knows, but he knows more of these people than I ever dreamt and he has brought them into our government. He is not the nice guy with the dreamy eyes. He is a monster.

Not to worry. His Highness is in N.O. trying to gin up some riots. Guess a good riot would cover up the fact he’s a complete failure as a leader. He’ll see a roit when 50 million or so really angry citizens march on D.C. with baseball bats and pitchforks. There will be violence and deaths never seen before in the world. Dingy Harry Reid admitted the medical fiesco will cost $2 trillion, not the 800 million the lying CBO put out. Do you see a doubling of federal taxes in the near future. Maybe it’s time for the first military takeover of the country, led by Gen P.. Elections to follow, former politicians need not apply.

Oh, that’s Anita Dunn.
I thought it might be the new comb-over czar.

From Chairman Mao to Obamao-mao Dunn likes to lick the boots of those commie/socialist overlords. She just can’t figure out why the rest of us have a problem with her under the foot fetish. Freedom is wasted on people like her.

The Obama administration has encouraged all the creepy, slimy denizens of the dark to crawl out from under their rocks, take a seat at the head table, and do their part to destroy civilization as we know it. They hopey you likey the changey.

“while Obama can only knock them(flies) down with his hands”

- posted by Patvann

Or his ears.

How do you people become this way? It seems like it would be too simple just to call you haters, but what else would it be? You just make things up. I’ve seen liberals do it too. I know it’s fun. It’s fun to exaggerate. It’s fun to make a mountain out of a mole hill. You’ve got every right to do it. Just don’t act like you’re making a serious contribution. Don’t act like you’re making things better. All you’re doing is having your little hissy fit 24/7. Be as extreme as you want to be. The taliban have nothing on you.

Is Anita “Dunn” yet? And, Oh girl that hair! That style went out when they started using those little red books for a better purpose—-in their 1/2 billion port-a-potties.

More like a sacrificial goat. That damn Beck went and foiled their plot.

What has the nastiness and big spending, out of control Obama policies wrought? If the 2012 elections were held today, 48% would not vote for Obama, 43% would, the folks are catching on:

Obama’s job approval rating comes in at 49 percent this week. That’s down just one percentage point from late September, but it marks a new low approval for the president — and the first time the Fox News poll has measured his approval below 50 percent.

Moreover, the number of Americans saying they would vote to re-elect President Obama has dropped. If the election were held today the poll finds more voters say they would back someone else in the 2012 election than would back the president.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/15/fox-news-poll-vote-elect-president-obama/

@Craig Travis:

Just make it up? Did you happen to even watch the video, if so why doesn’t it bother you that Dunn and others Obama surrounds himself with happen to be Marxists, Maoists? his Communist pal, upon exposure, was immediately thrown under the bus. Obama himself has said to judge him by who he associates with, we just aren’t supposed to find out who his unconfirmed associates are.

How do people become this way? That’s a question you should ask those running the country. Watching this administration and this Congress ruin the lives of our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren by imposing debt on them that will turn them into slaves. It will be a couple of generations that will be saddled by this spending. Speaking out, hoping to stop it is not hate.

BTW, Obama plans to dish out taxpayer money to the taliban, it worked so well with ACORN, perhaps you should find another evil to tack onto all that oppose this administrations policies. Haven’t you heard, the taliban is good. Perhaps you might want to accuse us of being more like Iranian protesters………they were the bad guys.

Trolling again moose turd?

Craig, project much? You actually came to a site full of “haters” to tell us how much you hate us? How about adressing the vid? Oh, that would require thinking and getting off your clueless “non-partisan” high horse. BTW, we do much more and have done much more than someone like you to improve this country and protect it from loons like dunn.

Dunn=Done! America is done! Can’t you see the connection here people??
Mao=Maui=Hawaii=birth certificate=imposter=maui wowie=smoke=tears=Glen Beck
Glen Beck and Chairman Mao?? Oh No! I can show you the pictures all together to prove it too.

Come on Hard Right, I love Glen Beck as much as you do, he is starting to make sense, I can see why many folks embrace him now….

Has the Ozero whitehouse bitten off more than they can chew?

http://i979.photobucket.com/albums/ae277/RAPH6969/ussfn.jpg

Let me guess Moose, you also think Olderman makes sense as well?

Rides A Pale Horse, Don’t You know it. The “O” can’t figure it out. Beyond his intellect.

Traitors like Anita Dunn, Axlerod and others that Soros have sent need to be expunged from Our Government. Impeachment of Obama to follow. Then decades to repair the damage done.

Public Hangings and taking the Nation back. It will happen when America has 20% unemployment in the Private Sector by December. Count on it.

@mooseburger: Mossy… I was NOT responding to your TRANSPARENT attempt to change the subject.

It should be clear from my comment above that I was responding to Craig/Transvestite.

If you want to maintain a shard of credibility I would suggest you stick to topic and not try and divert attention away from the issue which is the subject of this post.

You people seem to think you can say or do whatever you want and it’s OK, but IT IS NOT!

Stick to the topic or STFU!

You say you’ll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it’s the institution
Well, you know
You better free you mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao
You ain’t going to make it with anyone anyhow
Don’t you know it’s gonna be all right
all right, all right
all right, all right, all right
all right, all right, all right

mooseburger

Please get back on your meds.

@MataHarley: I’ve made that same point, though not with as much detail, on another thread. We haven’t seen Richard Lugar or Warren Buffet or Paul Volker at Obama’s side for months. Jim Jones has been bought and paid for.

What we do see around Obama is a sea of socialists/communists/pedophile lovers and other assorted trash from the bins of discarded Marxist worship.

And let’s not forget Obama’s own ties to a Marxist Stalinist who served as his childhood mentor in Hawaii.

Birds of a feather flock together.

Aye Chewbacca: That is the whole point, Beck came out and said he COULD NOT debunk it, promised a report, then he came out later and debunked it after he had built up as much coverage from the issue as he could get before he had to backtrack. He is a genius and only goes where the facts lead him. I hope everyone in the Republican party can be just like him for as long as possible.

Mata, the message is very clear: Hate, Hate, Hate Obama. Everything about Obama, everyone around Obama, get ‘em before they destroy America. Don’t look at our past failings, or consider that Republicans lost the election for a reason. Don’t be reasonable and offer agreement where it is due, and opposition where it is warrranted. Just oppose and demonize at all costs all the time. The election campaign put on by the Republicans last summer has never stopped. It never will. Obama loves terrorists and hates America. Keep at it I say. Keep crying wolf, maybe the wolf will show up, and nobody is going to believe you when it does. All this makes Obama seem reasonable by comparison, therefore, this enables Obama more than I ever could. Glen Beck can thrive in these conditions, and when Republicans do win again someday, the road will be well paved to keep Republicans from being able to govern, even if the Voters have had their say in the matter.

Mike’s America wrote “Well in the case of Obama he was mentored as a child by Frank Marshall Davis in Hawaii, an avowed STALINIST.”

Mike may have a future in writing historical fiction, because he certainly has distorted history. Davis was not an “avowed Stalinist.” As a matter of fact, he directly criticized Stalin in his poetry.

Although Obama’s book indicates “Frank” was a family friend who offered him advice on racial issues, Obama wrote that Davis “fell short” and his views were “incurable.” Obama did not even visit Davis for three years before going to college. Obama’s book, itself, proves that Obama did not consider Davis to be a “wise and trusted counselor,” which is the definition of “mentor.” By what creative definition can Davis be considered his “mentor”?

President Obamaâ�¦you are who you surround yourself with enough said thanky….

I have studied Davis in depth, which is why I encourage you to substantiate your claims with primary source evidence, rather than speculation from bloggers like AIM’s Cliff Kincaid. For example:

“Frank Marshall Davis wrote poetry attacking Stalin by name, which appeared in his collections “I Am The American Negro” (1937) and “47th Street Poems” (1948)” (see page 48 of “The New Red Negro” at
http://books.google.com/books?id=kt5LMD-OnxoC&pg=PA48&lpg=PA48&dq=%22the+new+red+negro%22+communist+davis&source=web&ots=B-HaNJA9HW&sig=ZiOltjxuI1QwdjCAvvEC0f4NnGQ&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA48,M1)

Thanks!

About Anita Dunn’s “Chairman Mao” statement.

She was giving a commencement address. She was making (I think effectively) a useful point, and that is that a single, determined person can make a huge difference. She intentionally took two polar opposite people, to make this point: Chairman Mao and Mother Theresa. When she calls these people her favorite philosophers, she is careful to explain what she means about this. Here you have essentially a single man, with initially no resources, who, against all odds, defeated his adversaries and became the leader of a billion people. How did he do this?

I’m sure that you’ve read many of the quotes attributable to Chairman Mao.

e.g.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/mao_tsetung.html

I particularly like this one:

We think too small, like the frog at the bottom of the well. He thinks the sky is only as big as the top of the well. If he surfaced, he would have an entirely different view.

Mao was also a feminist before the onset of modern day feminism. You may not be a feminist, but you should be able to see how the philosophies of Mao would please a feminist like Dunn.

Yes, the various sayings of Chairman Mao also include gems like this one, which aren’t so nice.

Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy.

But you could apply this last one to the Right, equally as to the Left. There is a lot of this type of spirit on this particular blog. The Left as “The Enemy.” Crushing the enemy with the hammer of one’s own philosophy. I think that either Mike or Aye wrote, on a thread some time ago, that “politics is war.” Where did this come from?

Politics is war without bloodshed, while war is politics with bloodshed.

Chairman Mao

So Mike (or Aye, I don’t recall which) agrees with Chairman Mao — even quotes him. Does this make Mike (or Aye) a Communist? That’s how ridiculous is the accusation of Glenn Beck.

The man (Mao) certainly was a philosopher (unlike, for example, Adolf Hitler, to whom Glenn Beck compared Mao in asking, with exaggerated outrage, isn’t admiring the philosophy of Chairman Mao the same thing as admiring the philosophy of Adolf Hitler? — answer, no, it’s not, because Hitler was not a philosopher).

The point is that you can learn things from all sorts of people, both good people like Mother Theresa and bad people like Chairman Mao. I’m certain that the graduates who listened to Dunn’s commencement address understood this, even if Glenn Beck and other purveyors of political hate choose distortion in the pursuit of a gotcha moment.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

From Mike:

When did I EVER quote Chairman Mao with admiration? Please enlighten me.

From Aye:

So Mike (or Aye, I don’t recall which) agrees with Chairman Mao — even quotes him.
Hmmm….I see that Larry has shown up to purvey another myth.
Show me Larry where I have “agreed with”, or “quoted” Chairman Mao.
Show me.
Can you do that Larry….or is this another falsehood from you?

You are both distorting what I said (which I don’t need to repeat or explain — it’s all there in my #58. It’s what I said; it’s not what you said I said).

Aye’s comment in particular is a wonderful illustration of his entire approach to debate.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

@Aye (#63): See my comments in #62.

Thank you for doubling down in #63.

Q.E.D.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

@ Mike/Aye:

I did some Googling and I found what I think was the “politics is war” quotation. Turns out, it wasn’t either of you, but, rather “Hard Right” (whom I’m sure is no Maoist, even though he did quote Chairman Mao).

Politics is war and you don’t interupt your enemy when he’s making a mistake.

From: Dec 7, 2008 “Pleading the Fifth” Comment # 19

I do apologize for my error, although I did make it clear that I was writing from fallible memory and my point wasn’t to cast aspersions on any particular person, but simply to state that one does not need to agree with the totality of a a historical figure’s teachings to learn useful lessons from said historical figure.

CORRECTION:

I think that either Mike or Aye wrote, on a thread some time ago, that “politics is war.”

Should have been: “Hard Right wrote, on a thread some time ago, that “politics is war.” So Hard Right agrees with Chairman Mao — even quotes him. Does this make Hard Right a Communist? That’s how ridiculous is the accusation of Glenn Beck.”

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

Ow wow, commie davis once criticized stalin. That sure disproves all the other proof he was a commie and America hater.
A little Clozapine would do wonders for you mark.

Larry, seriously…get some help.
Your psychophantic defense of obama is just sad, and I too agree you are dishonest when it comes to him.
Here’s something for your need to feel like a victim………you’re a commie.

“…. other purveyors of hate”?? Larry, it’s a dangerously esoteric philosophical argument upon which you embark.

You choose to gloss over Ms. Dunn’s admiration of Mao: the quintessential “community organizer” who, along with his dependence upon military to achieve his philosophical dreams, sent out his call for violence to peasant armies as well. His success in doing so resulted in deaths that surpassed even Stalin or Hitler’s mass murders.

Mao has been elevated to lofty positions by the left since the 60s. And their influence in glorifying his “philosophy” has gained acceptance in various bios and curriculum. Such a figure in life should not be glorified, most especially when you think of the negative impact upon humanity. This is truly an example of “means” vs “ends” debate… especially when you admire the “means” and completely discard the “ends” achieved.

If you depend upon uttered “just words” by many of the various influential monsters of history, I’m sure one can find ideological gems by most that cross boundaries of political beliefs. If one listened to many of Obama’s words…. i.e. need for health care reform… one can find consensus in the phrasing. But it is actions and use of that philosophy …. i.e. what exactly constitutes health care reform…. that should be the focus of analysis.

An ugly fact is you cannot separate Dunn’s admiration of Mao as a philosopher from admiration of his specific philosophies. There is nothing to belie that Ms. Dunn doesn’t associate herself with Maoism in her personal beliefs for a political system. And it is that which is beyond objectionable… especially as one wielding power in the US Oval Office. That you attempt to do so is desperate parsing of intent, merely to give her a “get out of jail free” Monopoly card.

Don’t you find it fascinating and obvious that one can espouse Maoism and his philosophy, but then consider it “hate speech” when called a Maoist? Why the hypersensitivity? I’ll tell you why. Because being labeled accurately is damaging to the “ends”.

I find it notable that Dunn chose to highlight Mao’s determination to overcome adverse odds (a positive) with Mother Teresa’s response to a plea to help to “find your own Calcutta”…. a kind but pointed rejection of the request for aid (a negative). By doing so, she assigns the positive “can do” attitude to a monster, and a negative, by using what may be construed as an uncaring response, from an extraordinary woman.

Indeed, I found it offensive just to hear their names contained within the same sentence that drew any positive comparisons. Attempting to bridge any gap between the two, based on actions and not “just words” is, in my opinion, virtually impossible.

As a final note, you make quite a leap yourself. When you label anyone as a “purveyor of hate” because they point out that Dunn… with her obvious political philosophical agreement with Mao in achieving social welfare and justice (both methods and ends)… you are exactly that which you accuse Beck – a purveyor of hate.

@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Now you are lurching from the absurd to the ridiculous.

Even after it dawns on you that your original accusations directed at AYE and me are wrong you double down and try to pin it on H.R. with some totally STUPID conflation between one of his comments and Mao.

You really should know better. I thought you were smarter than that. Oh well, I have been wrong before.

I hope you won’t mind if instead of indulge your transparent attempt to CHANGE THE SUBJECT, I return to the topic.

Dunn states that Mao is one of “the two people I turn to most.”

Instead of being ashamed by this admission that a key White House insider worships one of the worst mass murderers in history you try and change the subject.

What a pity you haven’t got more ammunition in your belt. Your efforts on this thread are pathetically weak.

@Mike (#74)

No, I wasn’t the one to change the subject. I was responding to a point raised by Aye.

To address your point:

Dunn didn’t say that she “worshipped” Mao; she said that she “turned to him” AND to Mother Theresa for insights into ways to approach life. It’s perfectly clear that she “turns to” Mao for insights into political struggle against seemingly impossible odds — again, it’s hard to think of a recent individual who so single handedly rose from a position of total obscurity to overthrow a totalitarian regime and become the leader of a billion people. The fact that Mao, himself, becamse an even more ruthless totalitarian is not that which Dunn was holding up as an example. She was referring to the struggle for success, not what one does with success, once achieved. Her point was, again, that it’s possible to learn valuable lessons from all sorts of people, if you are willing to approach the world with an open mind. She did this by presenting the two most extreme examples one could choose.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

Actually larry, the commie remark was satire. I was using your own words against you in the same way you tried to use what may have been mine against me.

Really, you have zero credibility with me when it comes to politics. The way you complement obama reeks of verbal fellatio and your blatant dishonesty whenever you defend him has made it clear you suffer from pathological denial and narcissistic tendancies. The latter part means if obama is as wonderful as you claim, you too are smart, wonderful, etc., for seeing that in him and supporting him. Therefore it’s really all about you and your ego.

Ya know larry, hitler rose from nothing against overwhelming odds too. Should we turn to him for ways to approach life?
Really, when you defend scum like dunn you are absolutely repulsive.

@Mata:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiBDpL2dExY

Yes — “feels like”

Or, to put it another way, I know it when I see it.

The Glenn Becks of the world are vexations to the spirit.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

@Hard Right (#78):

Can I ask you a serious question?

Why can you not simply debate issues without layering on so much in the way of personal vituperation? I’m just trying to understand something, here, in the spirit of trying to learn something from people with whom I disagree.

Do you feel that the language in #78 is really helpful — to anyone? In what way is it helpful?

There are now 82 comments on this thread. Virtually all of them are the genre of echo chamber feeding the echo chamber. I was trying to interject a modicum of thoughtful debate. Mata seized my comments by the throat and offered compelling counterpoints. She didn’t treat me with kid gloves, but neither did she find it necessary to resort to the most personal forms of verbal attack.

On the other hand, perhaps Mata views me as being a guest on her blog (she being one of the editors). Bill Maher is one of those political hate fomenters who, at least, treats his own guests with respect. You and I are are simply visitors, so, perhaps, it’s OK to sling personal mud at that level. I’m just musing out loud, in real time. On one hand — on the other hand.

But I think that good manners are good manners, and I’m sufficiently old fashioned to appreciate good manners from a host.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

Mark #81, it’s nice that you… Mark Davis, son of Frank Marshall Davis.. are again paying us a visit. I have not forgotten our forum conversations in an August 2008 thread. And what rang the bell of association was not only your career comments, but your reference again to Tidwell’s article, and your MyBarackObama blogpost on the same subject.

The link to our prior conversations will, perhaps, remind you of our previous encounter about this Tidwell exoneration, as you see it, of your father’s political beliefs.

As you have again highlighted Mr. Tidwell’s paragraph here, I will again repeat what I responded to you back then…

Frank Marshall Davis did NOT believe in overthrowing the USA. He was committed to what the nation professed to be. For him, communism was primarily an intellectual vehicle to achieve a political end-a possible tool for gaining the constitutional freedoms of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for ALL Americans.”

This was the quote I was referring to in my post. This hardly belies Davis’ continued devotion to Marxism/socialism. Remember that Marxism is a step to full out Communism.

That he thinks socialism is the “possible tool for gaining the constitutional freedoms of life…” indicates Davis’ mentality.

However what I said remains the same. The only thing that matters is what Obama is today. He is a socialist/Marxist by his own proposed policies. Period. That Davis had, or did not have an influence is moot. But obviously, by surrounding himself with the characters he has in life, he is a professional victim, bent on forcing socialism onto a capitalist republic.

No… no… and did I say NO! Not while I breathe will I accept this willingly.

In the interest of balance, your response to me stated that it was likely your father viewed his membership in the Communist Party as a tool, citing “The New Red Negro”.

As I said to you then, from what I read of your father, I didn’t throw him into the 100% “radical” or “communist” class. However I do include him in the “socialist/Marxism” class.

One can spend much time debating the nuances separating Stalin and Karl Marx political philosophies. But what most of us can agree upon is that neither of them are particularly well suited to the founding concepts of the USA. Six of one, half dozen of the other… neither are guidelines for this nation, unless you are interested in “remaking” it in their philosophical, statist image.

Again I will say it was ironic his idea of achieving “constitutional” freedoms for black America was not to implement civil rights legislation, but to apply a socialist agenda – “every one is equal”. Socialism/Marxism, or Communism, does not lift up citizens. It lowers some, slightly raises others so that individuality becomes muddy, and excellence becomes out of favor, or prohibited and impossible.

And even more ironic that a Communist govt, assuming as a CPUSA member he would have been okay with that, would have probably made sure his poetry never made it to the masses.

The days of your father are entirely different than opportunities for black Americans today. While you may apply reasoning to justify the method your father chose to achieve civil rights in his time, those same methods are not acceptable by Obama in today’s era of civil rights. For in fact, a swing towards socialism and equality, as espoused by Marx, would result in the decline of enrichment and rewards enjoyed by many a successful black American.

I will also nitpick with your “mentor” comment: ala By what creative definition can Davis be considered his “mentor”?

The answer to that is, quite simply, Merriam Webster’s definition. I don’t think it can be effectively argued that your father was not a friend, trusted counselor or guide to a young Obama, sans his own father. So tho Mike’sA can speak for himself, I’d say it’s not farfetched to term him as a mentor and influence in Obama’s life.

But I do have to say, I always enjoy when you jump into the fray INRE your father’s defense since I do think you bring a balance to the myths when you put it into the perspective of your father’s era. But that dog don’t bark in 2009.

I figured we’ve run the gamut on the issue. I can’t debate someone’s opinion based on emotions and “feels like” observations. Nor can I argue with someone who sees the center from the left stance, while I see the center from my right.

Acknowledged

LW/HB

@Mark: I was wrong earlier Mark. Davis is a Stalinist and you can hide behind all the warm and fuzzy deceptions of which your fellow communists are expert but it won’t alter the fact.

Your definition of a civil rights activist would also cover George Wallace.

Methinks thou dost protest too much!

P.S. Who is YOUR #1 hero: Mao or Che Guevara?

Mark, I find it nigh on impossible to pass judgment on your father’s chosen methods of achieving civil rights. Quite frankly it was an era that few of us could fathom the goin’s on INRE race relations. Were I to live in times where I was so oppressed (and it’s not out of the question I may yet live see those in my lifetime), I’m quite sure that history (were I important enough to be recorded history as a mere foot soldier…) may classify my actions as “radical” in response. It’s difficult to view history without experiencing those times yourself.

I think there is merit in what you say that, at the time, the Communist Party offered your dad a public forum not accessible to him in those times. So let me say this. Perhaps it’s inappropriate of me to assume that your dad’s champion… Tidwell, in this case… thought he was doing your dad a favor when he said that Frank believed communism was the means to achieve civil rights. After all, the man is not here to speak for himself, nor note the changes in our society. But then, that’s all we have to go on, yes?

I’m not sure you could answer this question (without it being one of those tongue in cheek “are you still beating your wife” moments)… but I guess your father’s speculative legacy might be this: in those days, would he accept a communist society as the answer to civil rights even today, totally discarding his capitalist/excellence beliefs you say he held?

Who can answer this, but your father himself? No one. But by his chosen associations, that is the legacy he leaves.

Personally, I have long discarded your Dad as a talking point or “association” worthy of bringing up to evaluate Obama’s performance. First of all because it was a different time and circumstance. Second, because he is not here to speak for himself with current societal changes.

But most especially since there is so much that Obama has done – all by himself – that doesn’t require a linkage to your father using the worst portrayal. Obama’s own action reinforces my opinion of him as the architect to destroy this nation as it was founded.

Nor would I expect you to accurately predict how your father would approve/disapprove of a black American in the WH, actively thwarting black Americans’ successes (along with other races) in order to elevate others. If your father was genuinely a capitalist, I can’t believe he would approve of the current events. I think I… and even more you… would love to see upon what side he would land. Would he stand with Charles Payne on economics? A Ward Connerly on affirmative action? Walter Williams, George Schuyler or Thomas Sowell? Ah… if we could only see parallel universes.

I suspect that here, you and I will agree to disagree… your father aside. This is assuming that, over 8 months into his term, you agree with Obama’s economic decisions. Considering your career background, I will leave your opinions of his foreign policy as a “don’t ask, don’t tell” moment.

The above interchanges between MataHarley and “Mark” are a jaw-dropping example of blogosphere discourse at its very best. Thanks to both of you. – Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Larry…. You need a hankie. I can see your brown nose from here.

@Mark: I’ve learned my lesson. I saw firsthand today how Larry W. can just make stuff up about me that I never said. Over the past few months I’ve seen the same thing happen time and time again, most recently with the racist attacks on Rush Limbaugh.

Apparently, if those kinds of assaults on the truth are good enough for your side I might as well engage in the tactic too.

But again, here we are getting DISTRACTED (to use Obama’s favorite word) which is exactly what you and Larry are trying to do to take the focus off the Mao loving Ann Dunn.

Sorry pal, I’ve allowed you to get away with that for too long. Do you have a comment to make which is ON TOPIC?

@Mark shared. . .
“The men the American public admire most extravagantly are the most daring
liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the
truth.” – H. L. Mencken (1880 – 1956)
——-

If this is so true — why is there not a memorial to Benedict Arnold in DC?

@Mike:

But again, here we are getting DISTRACTED (to use Obama’s favorite word) which is exactly what you and Larry are trying to do to take the focus off the Mao loving Ann Dunn.

You are the one changing focus. My posts have squarely addressed the Ann Dunn issue; the only time I got off topic was to answer/address Aye’s issue. And I didn’t “make” anything “up.” I accurately recalled a relevant comment on F/A by a very conservative discussant who was no Mao lover, but who quoted Mao, none-the-less. I was clear in saying that I “thought” I recalled this was you (or Aye), but made it clear that this was simply from memory, which is, of course, fallible. I then took a break from my workday — solely to do the Google research, identified the correct (conservative) commentator, and posted the correction.

Other than that, I had several posts, which squarely addressed the Ann Dunn issue. You (and Aye and Hard Right) did not address the specific points I made — instead you simply responded with dismissive (and often personal) insults. I debated seriously. You simply hurled epithets.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

American Voter, perhaps I’m missing something you may be picking up on. But feel free to enlighten me… genuinely.

Mencken… source of the quote.. had great disdain for FDR. A hero of the American left and father of the “New Deal”. He oft referred to him as “the Führer”.

Further, it was also Mencken who said: Socialism is simply the degenerate capitalism of bankrupt capitalists. Its one genuine object is to get more money for its professors.

There’s a few other Mencken gems that indicate he was more libertarian in his beliefs philosophically. i.e. from his 1949 Chrestomathy compilation discussing the “inner nature” of government:

All government, in its essence, is a conspiracy against the superior man; its one permanent object is to oppress him and cripple him. If it be aristocratic in organisation, then it seeks to protect the man who is superior only in law against the man who is superior in fact; if it be democratic, then it seeks to protect the man who is inferior in every way against both. One of its primary functions is to regiment men by force, to make them as much alike as possible and as dependent upon one another as possible, to search out and combat originality among them. All it can see in an original idea is potential change, and hence an invasion of its prerogatives. The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And even if he is not romantic personally he is very apt to spread discontent among those who are …

What lies behind all this, I believe, is a deep sense of the fundamental antagonism between the government and the people it governs. It is apprehended, not as a committee of citizens chosen to carry on the communal business of the whole population, but as a separate and autonomous corporation, mainly devoted to exploiting the population for the benefit of its own members … When a private citizen is robbed a worthy man is deprived of the fruits of his industry and thrift; when the government is robbed the worst that happens is that certain rogues and loafers have less money to play with than they had before. The notion that they have earned that money is never entertained; to most sensible men it would seem ludicrous. They are simply rascals who, by accidents of law, have a somewhat dubious right to a share in the earnings of their fellow men.

This gang is well-nigh immune to punishment. Its worst extortions, even when they are baldly for private profit, carry no certain penalties under our laws. Since the first days of the Republic, less than a dozen of its members have been impeached, and only a few obscure understrappers have ever been put into prison. The number of men sitting at Atlanta and Leavenworth for revolting against the extortions of government is always ten times as great as the number of government officials condemned for oppressing the taxpayers to their own gain … There are no longer any citizens in the world; there are only subjects. They work day in and day out for their masters; they are bound to die for their masters at call … On some bright tomorrow, a geological epoch or two hence, they will come to the end of their endurance …

Or, as he said in the late 20s in the Notes of Democracy:

“Under the pressure of fanaticism, and with the mob complacently applauding the show, democratic law tends more and more to be grounded upon the maxim that every citizen is, by nature, a traitor, a libertine, and a scoundrel. In order to dissuade him from his evil-doing the police power is extended until it surpasses anything ever heard of in the oriental monarchies of antiquity.”

Laughably, the bone-head, wannabe journalist known as Lew Rockwell tried to attribute that quote to Mencken with a headline stating “H. L. Mencken on the Bush Regime” back in February 2008.

Of course the fly in the ointment is that Mencken died in Jan 1956.. when Dubya was but 10 years old. LOL Nice try, Rockwell. But then, as we can see, math is not the forte of liberal/progressives.

So I guess I’m missing the tie between the Mencken quote and some sort of elevation of Benedict Arnold here in your mind, unless you’re using the current liberal/progressives mischaracterization of Mencken.

And I don’t find anything that indicates Mencken was speaking of Arnold with that quotation. So what’s the point of the question, from your viewpoint?

I see the Obama distraction machine remains ramped up to full power.

Mark: I really don’t care whether your father was a Stalinist or not. That’s not the topic of this post.

Your attempt to steer this discussion away from the point of the post is transparent.

And of course Larry is only too happy to help in this commie coverup.

“I really don’t care whether your father was a Stalinist or not. That’s not the topic of this post.”

Then why the lie?

@Mata Harley
I was taking the quote at face value. . .’The men the American public admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars’. . .I used an example of a famous, daring liar Benedict Arnold. That was all. . .no hidden meaning. . .another famous, daring liar? Bernie Madoff.

Secondly, I was also looking at the era in which Mencken lived. This quote does not necessarily, reflect contemporary Americans living in the age of internet/UTube. Liars can be outed/discredited within minutes so I do not subscribe to a wholesale buy-in to Mencken’s philosophical thought for 2009 political America.

Mark #89. So sorry I didn’ address this comment sooner… if you’re still out there.

As Obama himself said Davis “fell short” and his views were “incurable,” what evidence is there that Obama trusted his counsel? With empirical evidence against it, and mere speculation for it, any objective analysis would have to “follow the evidence,” as they say on CSI.

Thanks for your consideration.

Let me say this emphatically… just in case you did not get this from my above comments about your father’s era, and today. While I can see your dad making more extreme contacts in his era, there is no way in Hades I can justify that from our privileged POTUS today.

The fact that Obama “says” your father “fell short” of being a trusted counsel means nothing from a man who lives daily on political expediency for his every waking moment.

I give your consideration for your father, your exposure to him intimately, and his time and place in our country. Obama? No pass…. And, in fact, I believe Obama just added your father under the bus, with the other sundry expendable bodies.

oh for crissakes, American Voter… what the hell are you talking about? I’m still trying to figure out why you would attribute an anti-goverment libertarian’s saying to Benedict Arnold… who was pro-England in the Revolution (and most certainly not anti-government… ) and I can’t get a cogent answer. No judgment call… just trying to sort out out your train of thought.

I have to say… your clarification only made it worse, compounded by some pouting ‘tude.

I’m not sure how you interpreted the quote, or why you seemed to attribute that to “the situation” (as opposed to Mark’s other quotes ending his comments??) to Benedict Arnold. But I sure can tell you… it’s the opposite of how I saw it.

Since I can’t make heads of tails of your “wounded to the quick” response about challenging, maybe it will help if I offer up a more simplified translation and show you how I think it relates quite well to Obama.

The men the American public admire most extravagantly [i.e. Obama, Axelrod, Rahm'bo, and ilk] are the most daring liars; [can't argue that one...] the men they detest most violently [opposition... conservatives Beck? Rush? tea parties? insurance industries? CBO? pick one...] are those who try to tell them the truth.” – H. L. Mencken (1880 – 1956)

Now the only way I can see the case you’re trying to make is maybe you’re thinking mirror opposite.. that the “public admires most” the conservative voices in today’s time. In which case, I need some of whatever you’re taking. Other than that, anti-big government are the voices Mencken (an anti-big government activist) was saying are the most detested…. both in his FDR era and our time today. Therefore it transcends time and situation perfectly.

No larry, I did not quote mao. It’s just more dishonesty on your part. It’s like saying because mao once said the word car, I was quoting him when I said car. The fact is I actually wasn’t aware of what mao had said as murderous communist thugs aren’t my inspiration. Way to show we are right about you lying for obama and really, yourself.

There are now 82 comments on this thread. Virtually all of them are the genre of echo chamber feeding the echo chamber. I was trying to interject a modicum of thoughtful debate.

Ah yes, benevolent larry came here to save us partisan zombies from ourselves. Why, we must disagree with him because we just don’t think. Us close minded ideological bigots just need to be shown the light by someone of superior intellect or reasoning skills.
Larry, you have just proven what I said. This really all about you and your ego. Your problem with us is that we refuse to join you in your fantasy world and you cannot deal with that.

You can’t even be honest with yourself about your views.
You claimed to be more fiscally conserrvative than Conservatives. Yet you support health reform that will create monster deficits and destroy the economy.
You excuse obama’s spending by blaming it on Bush.
You can’t even admit that obama’s picks aren’t moderate. You try to play the subjectivity game.
You defend dunn because you are defending obama and by extension yourself. Just because you cannot see that doesn’t mean I can’t.
There is no defending what she said and your eforts to do so ARE narcissistic and disgusting.

@American Voter: Don’t go away mad and PLEASE do not go away. Not sure what you are Mata are squabbling about but to quote Rodney King “Can’t we all just get along?”

I always enjoy your comments and that’s not because I agree with them but it helps.

@Aye Chihuahua:

Is this the clip you were looking for?

They aren’t moderates but larry wants to play the definition of “is” game.

Radical marxists that hate America are now in charge. Lovely.

@ Hard Right, who said:

No larry, I did not quote mao. It’s just more dishonesty on your part. It’s like saying because mao once said the word car, I was quoting him when I said car. The fact is I actually wasn’t aware of what mao had said as murderous communist thugs aren’t my inspiration. Way to show we are right about you lying for obama and really, yourself.

Actually, Hard Right, you DID quote Mao. You just didn’t know that you quoted Mao. Go to a familiar quotation source and look up “politics is war,” and Mao is credited as being the author. The fact that you apparently didn’t know this doesn’t change what you did.

Let’s look at several other Mao quotes:

Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred schools of thought contend.

Despise the enemy strategically, but take him seriously tactically.

Politics is war without bloodshed, while war is politics with bloodshed.

And so on.

Now, let’s say that your occupation is that of “professional political strategist.” Mao, as Dunn noted in her commencement speech, went from being a nobody to overthrowing a despotic regime and becoming the leader of a country of a billion people. By any definition, he is one of the most master political strategists of all time. Mao is generally viewed as being a political genius but a military klutz.

Once again, Dunn’s point is that you can learn from everyone, and she intentionally chose polar opposites on the scale of human goodness. She clearly wasn’t holding up Mao as an example of human goodness, she was holding him up as one of the greatest political philosophers of all time. Which he clearly is.

At the US Army War college, they study Ho Chi Minh, who was the master military strategist of his particular genre.

Republicans don’t realize it, perhaps, but today’s political tactics (e.g. see above) are straight out of the Chairman Mao playbook. This goes for Republicans as well as Democrats. You guys are waging political war — in fact, you are waging political guerilla war. You despise the “enemy” strategically, but you take him seriously (at least you SHOULD take him seriously) tactically. One of your weaknesses is that you are unwilling to let different schools of thought contend. You suffer from a surfeit of certitude, and this threatens to be your downfall.

You don’t realize it, but you would be vastly better off engaging me (e.g. in the style of Mata and Wordsmith) as opposed to simply throwing crude insults my way.

Hard says that I’m here because of my “ego.” Well, I do have an ego, but that’s not the primary reason I’m here. I could go around knocking on doors and passing out leaflets. I have done that in the past, as when I wanted to convince the Huntington Beach City Council to build a youth sports complex. Or I could contribute money to go to political advertising. I’ve done only a little of the latter, choosing to invest, instead, in the education of my children and in the furtherance of my small business. Instead, I like discussing politics on the Internet, where there are 10 lurkers for every participant, and where it’s the lurkers who are potentially up for grabs, persuasion-wise. I’ll never convince anyone like Mike, or Aye, or Hard, or even Mata, Wordsmith, Scott, or the other polite conservatives who write on this blog. But I just might get the odd silent reader to view both sides of a given issue more equally, and this makes me feel as if I am participating in our political system.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

@openid.aol.com/runnswim: I’m the veteran of a number of statewide campaigns and also worked in the White House Office of Political Affairs during a presidential campaign. I can’t recall ONE “professional political strategist” in all that time who ever quoted Mao, let alone made a speech with him as a centerpiece.

I do recall a great many conservatives citing Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson, John Locke, Samuel Adams and a host of other founding fathers, patriots and political philosophers.

Your transparent attempt to sweep the Mao Mania in Obama land under the rug is LAUGHABLE!

@Mike, Aye, Hard

I dutifully read your replies (#123,124,126)

From my perspective, I’ve said all I wish or need to say on this.

- Larry w

Apologies, guys. One more “dig:”

@Mike:

I’m the veteran of a number of statewide campaigns and also worked in the White House Office of Political Affairs during a presidential campaign. I can’t recall ONE “professional political strategist” in all that time who ever quoted Mao, let alone made a speech with him as a centerpiece.

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

Larry W/HB

How anyone can write a Mike/Aye/Hard Right response to a debate opponent (Choose one from each category):

You are a (liberal/Leftist/Socialist/Marxist/Communist). This is just another one of your (falsehoods/fabrications/lies). You have been proven to be (wrong/delusional/without credibility/drinking too much Kool Aid, narcissistic, in need of psychotherapy). Your comments were (laughable, demented, whining, whacko).

Sincerely, (Mike, Aye, Hard Right)

@Mike’s America –
Thanks but I am not mad — I go through more grief while at workplace in planning meetings (they have nothing on political debate forums) and ESPECIALLY debating family at Thanksgiving/Christmas as I am sure many ‘enjoy’ — I was on duty last night and came home and slept. You can’t get rid of me that easily. (Although, at a social gathering a month ago, I sure heard a lot of backpeddling and “maybe I was wrong, he is not governing as a centrist” — from Obama voters)

I was taught not to swear. I was raised to question everything. I was educated that not all of men’s words (quotes) transcend time, scenario and situation — learn from them, but question.

When someone offers a quote to back up their belief in public forum it was perfectly ok to question. Therefore, when someone offers me a quote to convince me that Americans love the White House Staff and President just because they are liars — I say that yes, a percentage do but that is shifting. Does everyone love FOX News/Glenn Beck — no but it is shifting also — a varitable rating s bonanza. To me the quote applies to polarized viewpoints — NOT WHOLESALE American views.
——————————-The quote Mata Harley interpreted for me as she though me too stupid to understand. . .represents a leftist viewpoint.

The men the American public admire most extravagantly [i.e. Obama, Axelrod, Rahm'bo, and ilk] are the most daring liars; [can't argue that one...] the men they detest most violently [opposition... conservatives Beck? Rush? tea parties? insurance industries? CBO? pick one...] are those who try to tell them the truth.” – H. L. Mencken (1880 – 1956)
——————————-

I do not subscribe that all Americans most admire the daring liars and used examples to show this formula does not apply. . .wholesale. Neither does that apply wholesale to whistle blowers.

I used absurd examples to try and blow a whole in this. . .ie daring Liars in history — Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini (although he was breifly a darling), and thousands more — including the absurd examples of two well known liars. . .Madoff, Benedict Arnold, Were/are all of these admired by all Americans because they were liars?

Subsequently, are all whistle blowers reviled? Woodward and Bernstein come to mind. Glenn Beck IS hated by the left but boy if I had a tv show at 5 o’clock, I sure would love his ratings. And by the way, not everyone loathes Beck. . .he is doing some questioning that was left undone by MSM.

Additionally, I was trying to raise a point that Americans can run to the internet and check out facts more readily than even a decade ago. . .citizen journalism goes around determined propagandists.

So while I appreciate and love any history lessons as a chance to learn, I did not appreciate the patronization. I am just trying to question the wholesale application of a quote. . .to justify the argument. . .

Finally.
Our country is in a varitable tug-of-war for it’s very foundation. As imperfect of a country as we may be, we have always strived to evolve, improve, and help those in true need.

We are divided politically (and have been at times throughout our history) and each side of the fence has its arguments. For awhile, Obama was able to con enough people to his campaign rhetoric and hollow promises. According to THE quote we have been beating like a dead horse – Americans love him and his minions. . .but I do not believe all love him. According to the quote. . . the whistle blowers are reviled (FOX et al). . but I do not believe all are reviled. Just depends from what side of the rope one is tugging.

In this political tug-of-war regarding the White House/Anita Mao Dunn vs Fox/Glenn Beck, I think a more appropriate quote to be ————————
You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.
Abraham Lincoln, (attributed)
16th president of US (1809 – 1865)

My bet is on the common sense of the American people winning the tug-of-war — and as long as we have the internet and free speech, and speak up about the glorification of mass murderers and stop their deification — our odds are good. . .very good and I’ll bet the 1.8 million of my new best friends that I marched with in DC on 9-12 will back me up on that one!

About trying to bucket all Americans into one mindset. . .CNN had something to say today on this

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/20/cnn-poll-half-the-country-disagrees-with-obama-on-issues/

@Mark: Thanks Mark. You just described what you and your fellow Stalinists DO EVERY DAY!

The miscommunication continues, AV. You said, INRE Mark Davis:

When someone offers a quote to back up their belief in public forum it was perfectly ok to question. Therefore, when someone offers me a quote to convince me that Americans love the White House Staff and President just because they are liars — I say that yes, a percentage do but that is shifting.

Again, a head scratcher. Mark did not offer the Mencken quote for that purpose. And in fact, INRE the subject of this post, he offered this:

Mark #97: Sorry, Mike’s America, but I could care less about Anita Dunn. My blogosphere attention is focused almost exclusively on refuting the lies concerning my father, such as your “avowed Stalinist” fabrication.

This is the exact same reason Mark entered the FA forum last August. Not to address the subject, but address solely what was said about his father. His quotes (yes, plural) offered were attached to many of his comments, by varied authors, all addressing the concept of spreading lies (exactly the reason he’s present in the thread). i.e.

Comment 81: “Truth is generally the best vindication against slander.” – Abraham Lincoln

Comment 89: “Have patience awhile; slanders are not long-lived. Truth is the child of time; erelong she shall appear to vindicate thee.” – Immanuel Kant

Comment 91: “The men the American public admire most extravagantly are the most daring
liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the
truth.” – H. L. Mencken (1880 – 1956)

Comment 93: “I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. That is why right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant.”
– Martin Luther King Jr. (1929 – 1968)

Comment 95: “The way to combat noxious ideas is with other ideas. The way to combat falsehoods is with truth.” – William O. Douglas

This has to do with Anita Dunn, Obama and the White House how? It doesn’t. Therefore, the quote you addressed, which you seemed to assume that Mark meant that “Americans love the White House Staff and President just because they are liars” is the first off tangent miscommunication.

It goes downhill from there.

The second miscommunication is your assumption the Mencken quote had to include every and all Americans, *and* that they admired them *because* they are liars. If you knew much about Mencken and his writings (which I can now only assume you don’t… and no, that’s not said with an attitude or judgment), he was saying is that those who generally garner the most admiration from the American public *are* liars, and they detest those that try to expose their heroes as liars.

Nothing could be more appropriate for Obama and the nation/media today than Mencken’s quote.

The third miscommunication was assuming that Mencken, born 80 years or so after Benedict Arnold had died, was in the same era. In fact, Mencken didn’t start most of these works (other than his cub report gig at a Baltimore paper) 1906 and later. Which is why Mark stated he believed it was a 20th century quote.

The last miscommunication was you assuming I was somehow infringing on your right to challenge (erroneously) Mark’s purpose for a quote that never existed. I established right from the start that I was merely trying to figure out how you got to your remark on that quote… (and never addressed any of Mark’s other quotes). Especially since you consistently tied it to Anita Dunn… whom Davis has no comment on. It’s not his purpose here.

Then you launch against me.

And now I’m a “leftist”. BWAHAHAHA Must remember to see if the DNC will let me within 20 feet of their doors. That oughta be a hoot.

Like I said… failure to communicate. However unlike you, I did not attack you personally. Instead, in your own failure to communicate/comprehend, you figured I was demeaning you. So you felt justified in becoming personal with me.

So be it. You’re not the only like minded commenter here with whom I can’t carry on a conversation. Neither of us will lose sleep about it. And if you feel more comfortable as the victim, have at it.

As for me? This thread has become far too ugly and base on many levels for me to tolerate further… even from the friendlies. You all enjoy your mud slinging and imaginary battles. Further comments will now end up in my e-trash bin.

@Aye:

My statement was that Adam Smith is often cited as the father of the progressive tax and it has been widely quoted that BOTH Karl Marx and Adam Smith supported this. That is absolutely, demonstrably, 100% true. Google it. My quotation was by Robert Reich, former Harvard and current UC Berkeley professor and former Secretary of Labor. You want to have an academic debate on the matter, that’s one thing. You could debate with Reich, and I’m prepared to debate with you. But this doesn’t have any impact on the veracity of my statement above.

With regard to your quotations and arguments, here are my counter-arguments.

We are talking about two entirely different issues. The first is this: what forms of taxes are to be preferred over other taxes? Smith clearly prefers real estate taxes to income taxes. The second issue is this: once the debate over taxes has been settled, should the tax be “flat” or should it be “progressive?” The words and reasoning of Adam Smith certainly can be (and have been) used to claim that Adam Smith supported progressive taxation.

The battle over which form of taxation is to be preferred at the Federal level has been decided in favor of the income tax, where it was first imposed by Congress and signed by Lincoln in 1862 to pay for the war and remained in force for almost 10 years. It has been a permanent fixture since the passage of the 16th Amendment in 1913).

With regard to Snopesgate, I told you exactly what happened. I read the headlines and “went” with those headlines. Within 5 minutes, when doing a purely mechanical check, the headline had been changed from “True” to “Mixed” and I — only at that time — actually read the rest of the article. And I did this within 5 minutes of the original post and I immediately corrected it — BEFORE your “gotcha” post. You want to call me careless — fine. The shoe fits, in this instance. But it wasn’t an intentional lie, and the fact that I posted the link proves that I had no intention to deceive anyone, and it is a fact that you were called out on your shameful attempts to impugn my integrity by a blog reader who happened to be a conservative and you were supported in this effort by no one.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

You know what Mr. Beck – I’l GLAD SHE’S there; I’m glad she has the sensibility to be OPEN to alternative SUCCESS methods towards the betterment of the people as a whole. There’s too much of this “what’s in it for me” bs in this country. Maybe the ideals that help propel the NEXT greatest economy and country on this world will be finally be seen here before it’s too late. Oh yes Mr Beck the downfall has already started. The Chinese have just begun to over take and supplant the US as the leading economic force on this planet. The US will NEVER be able to buy back all the (financial) paper the the chinese posses; and just wait for the day when they call for those notes to become due – that will be the epitome of the greed and arrogance the US has shown the rest of the world.

i am like most people i know . i have a job ( NOT NOW ) come home from work cook clean help my kid with homework you know the living biz . well i have found my sealf with some time on my hands and though i would look at gleen beck who i have olney seen 3 – 4 times . i don’t trust the news that i see on tv it just fells like bullshit . seen gleens show and though i would do some looking in to how much bullshit he was squarting out of his mouth . the more i look at his crazy talk the more i trust him . so far he is looking good in my eyes ill prob keep an eye on him after i find a job . i don’t vote becouse i don’t have time to look at what is going on and i don’t trust people ( don’t want to vote for the next hittler ) bush was bad president Barack Obama i don’t know yet i know he it trying to do good thaings but so was hittler . he was trying to change the world

One stop Obama shop, Merry Christmas!

http://www.lookingattheleft.com/2009/10/oh-wow-oba-mao-in-washington/