Skip navigation

diversitylane_anita_for-blog

About these ads

103 Comments

    • Max
    • Posted October 21, 2009 at 9:59 am
    • Permalink

    Another direct hit, Zack. Good work. This one reminds us of yet another of Orwell’s (pace, wootabega…) concise, yet utterly damning observations; that the unforgivable sin of the left is that, though they condemned fascism, they did not condemn totalitarianism. They were, and remain to this day soft on–if not openly sympathetic and supportive of–the most heinous, genocidal movement in human history: world communism.

  1. Thanks Max, and damn nice broadside yourself with that choice Orwell observation. Especially impressive considering your “unfamiliarity” with him according to wootabega.

  2. Excellent one!

    Sorry for the brief comment– I’m fighting off the flu. But this made me laugh.

  3. Thanks Joseph, and hope you’re better soon. Would that liberalism could be cured as swiftly as your flu undoubtedly will be…

    • wootabega
    • Posted October 21, 2009 at 11:35 am
    • Permalink

    So if liberalism is the flu that makes conservatism some kind of HIV/AIDS.

    • Max
    • Posted October 21, 2009 at 11:46 am
    • Permalink

    wootabega’s a regular stand-up comic, isn’t he?

    • Manuel Calavera
    • Posted October 21, 2009 at 12:38 pm
    • Permalink

    Max, your error is in thinking Orwell was a Conservative. He was a *leftist*.

    • wootabega
    • Posted October 21, 2009 at 1:05 pm
    • Permalink

    Hey Max, what do you think of democratic socialism?

    • Max
    • Posted October 21, 2009 at 1:06 pm
    • Permalink

    Manuel,
    Actually, I never said or implied in any way that Orwell was a conservative–which, of course, he was not.
    Nor, however, did he remain a leftist though, like many young people, he started out one. Orwell was thoroughly disabused of his utopian illusions by the bitter reality of communist brutalities in Spain, where he served on the Loyalist (pro-Marxist) side.
    I quote him because, A) He is an authority, and a brilliant writer; and, B) Many liberals (like many conservatives, it must be said…) are instantly dismissive of their opponent’s arguments.

    • Max
    • Posted October 21, 2009 at 1:25 pm
    • Permalink

    wootabega,
    Well, I don’t think it’s the political/economic system most conducive to human well being. But it’s certainly not the monstrosity that either communism or fascism are/were.

    • MethodistMin
    • Posted October 21, 2009 at 2:56 pm
    • Permalink

    Zack-

    Good cartoon, but unlike some poster here who suggested about people who like your cartoons, I am not fawning over it. :^)

    I am so troubled by how many really radical friends and associates Obama had and has. I was particularly struck by this because having been a liberal for 30 years this is fso far from what I have apprecaite about the spirit of liberalism with liberalism. Yet nobody in the MSNBC questions a woman who says one of her favorite political figures is Mao who killed millions of his own people. Then she claimed it was a joke?!!

    I am rather alone because except for my husband nobody I know well has had a political conversion from liberalism. My liberal friends will never accept there is something radically wrong with Obama. He’s not Russ Feingold; He’s not Nader. Those men I believe were not narcissists and I think they love this country. One one consolation I take is from a psychotherapist (I don’t see him; I just reads him online ;^) with the moniker “Robin of Berekely” who describes himself as a liberal in recovery. As he asks in this-to me-interesting article-”How many radicals must preach to Obama, advise him…How many churches must be torched…before we see that Obama is not one of us?” By us, I take that to mean not a person not born in America (I’m not a “birther”) but a person who has no respect for democracy and uses Alinky’s Rules for radicals as his personal manifesto.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2000/10/silence_of_the_lambs_1.html

    • MethodistMin
    • Posted October 21, 2009 at 3:05 pm
    • Permalink

    Whoops; meant-”This is so far from what I have appreciated about the spirit of liberalism”

    “Robin of Berkely ” describes himself as a “liberal in recovery”. He probably uses an alias because he might have his car torched and receive death threats if some of the gently and loving left in Berekely knew that he didn’t support Obama. Also, the liberals who are in desperate need of counselling for depression or other serious life isues would probably boycott his practice.

    As a person of the Christian faith, I see Obama as serving as substitute for organizaed religion and faith in God. Some leftist who are not religious see Obama as a “Savior” and socialism as an answer to their prayers. because of course, if we have the perfect state people wil be perfect. Riiight I’m not saying all Obama supporters feel that way but the Obama campiagn definitely used messianic imagery. Good gried he claineed that the seas sould stop rising if he was in charge. Dangerous, dangerous narcisscism.

    • Sarah
    • Posted October 21, 2009 at 4:38 pm
    • Permalink

    Hey, I get it, the angry lesbian strawman is shocked at the fact that Anita Dunn likes Mother Theresa, whom all Real Americans should love, rather than the fact that she also likes Mao, whom all Real Americans should hate! Hilarious!

    We need to bring Dunn to justice for this vile thoughtcrime. How dare she utter such an unAmerican statement?

  4. Sarah: I’m deeply offended by your use of the term “strawman” in referencing a lesbian.

    • MethodistMin
    • Posted October 21, 2009 at 5:06 pm
    • Permalink

    There’s an angry lesbian strawman posting on this thread?? Are they getting ready for Gay- I mean Guy-Fawkes Day?

    I give you credit, Zack. I find some of Sarah’s posts incomprehensible, such as the one above and it has nothing to do with typos which I could hardly be in the position to complain about. ;^) I don’t even try to figure them out but unfortunately “her”? post above was one I actually read.

    • Max
    • Posted October 21, 2009 at 5:08 pm
    • Permalink

    Sarah,
    All kidding aside, do you not think that there really is something unAmerican–in fact, deeply immoral–about admiration for the greatest mass murderer in human history?

    • Sarah
    • Posted October 21, 2009 at 5:32 pm
    • Permalink

    Considering we’ve had several presidents who would find themselves on the list of great mass murderers of history, I’d say it’s about as American as apple pie and smallpox blankets.

    I do agree that it wasn’t a good idea to say such a thing. However, I don’t agree with your implication that she admires the man in his totality. Her statement was that Mao was one of her favorite political philosophers – not that she admires him (and the atrocities he committed). It is entirely possible to admire a person’s words while at the same time abhorring their actions. I know quite a few folks in the military who study Mao’s writings on peasant rebellion, which is certainly useful to us in this era of asymmetric warfare. Should we order these leaders to stop studying Mao because of the atrocities he committed?

    • Max
    • Posted October 21, 2009 at 5:49 pm
    • Permalink

    I see.
    Sarah, which presidents would you place on the list of history’s great mass murderers? Who would you put next to Mao, Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot?

    • Sarah
    • Posted October 21, 2009 at 6:17 pm
    • Permalink

    Andrew Jackson, by most accounts, has several thousand innocent deaths to his name. While that’s a trifling amount compared to the millions killed by Hitler, Stalin, and others, it’s still what I would qualify as “mass murder.” But that’s not really the issue being discussed anymore, and I’m not going to say anything else about this tangent from here on.

  5. Dead on. One of my first thoughts when I heard of her Mao and Mother Teresa comment is that the libs aren’t going to like her admiring Mother Teresa.

  6. And who else Sarah? I mean seriously, is that the best you can do? And no, I am not defending Jackson, what he did was wrong on several (dozen) levels. But I find it incomprehensible that you would put him on the same list and Mao, Stalin, Hitler etc.

    Too bad you don’t see the irony at play here Sarah.

    • wootabega
    • Posted October 21, 2009 at 9:01 pm
    • Permalink

    What about Truman? Atom bombs are pretty deadly.

    • Sarah
    • Posted October 22, 2009 at 12:25 am
    • Permalink

    “a gay leather daddy transgendered person”

    Hey, I’m just looking for something that says “dad likes leather.”

    • Methodistmin
    • Posted October 22, 2009 at 3:27 am
    • Permalink

    Actually that’s not my stand at all, Chris. What I initially said-and what I still think-is that Sarah is possibly a man (a troll) posing as a woman because the repetitive use of condescending sexual imagery, such as “you are geting a hard on thinking about Sarah Palin” as well as the use of the word “buddy” rather than “guy” sounds to me like the language of a man. I’d like to think that women don’t generally use condescending sexual imagery, but maybe some angry liberal women do. The liberal women I know don’t. Sarah’s initial comment towards Zach contained that. It wasn’t even initiated by what he said. There are a few men on here (or at least their handles indentify them as such) who use sexual language in a demeaning way. I find that rather common on intenet boards-from both sides of the political spectrum.

    My coment about Gay Fawkes was a little joke; It had nothing to do with Sarah because I have no idea who the angry lesbian strawmen is supposed to be on here. Or maybe the concept that that lesbians are generally angry is a strawmen. Some people are angry all the time-gay and straight. In addition, it’s really a bore having to explain jokes, but I guess people didn’t “get it.” On Guy Fawkes Day in England (November 5th) kids take around a scarecrow who is supposed to represent Guy Fawkes who tried to blow up the Houses of Parliament when James I was king. His plan was stopped. The English kids say “a penny for the guy”. I made the connection between “guy’ and “strawman” and “gay”. “Gay/Guy” strawman. Get it? ;^) Maybe somebody understood it without the explanation. I can actually make better jokes. ;^) Sigh.

    • Methodistmin
    • Posted October 22, 2009 at 3:36 am
    • Permalink

    In addition, I couldn’t care less whether Sarah is gay and/or transgendered or straight. The initial comment towards Zach was trollish. That was my initial complaint.

    • Methodistmin
    • Posted October 22, 2009 at 3:50 am
    • Permalink

    On nother note, I have a problem with Anita Dunn saying her favorite political thinker is Mao. If she admires the concepts of communism she could have said “Karl Marx” without citing for admiration he mass murderer Mao. Also, I don’t understand classing Mother Theresa with Mao. It would be like saying she admires Stalin but also admires the Amish. “??!!

    • Methodistmin
    • Posted October 22, 2009 at 4:28 am
    • Permalink

    And Mother Theresa was not a political thinker. i don’t even think she would classify herself as such. She was the leader of a Roman Catholic religious order. I suppose she could be classified as a theological thinker if one wanted to stretch the term. That comment of Anita Dunn didn’t sound intelligent to me.

  7. Methodistmin: Another point: upon relistening to the Anita Dunn speech-segment in question, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiBDpL2dExY a great warmth toward the Communist butcher is very apparent. After all, the only thing she is admiring (in this speech anyway) about Mao is that he “followed his own path,” i.e. didn’t take the advice of those around him. That’s IT. This impulse is actually the stuff of virtually any great individual’s character; she could have chosen Edison, Lincoln, the Wright brothers, Madame Curie or a zillion others who have struck out on their own, disregarding the staid advice of the Establishment. Instead, she chose Mao. Why, on earth? Listen again to the speech-segment and if you have any intuitive feel for body language and other unspoken cues, there is a real sense of warmth betrayed for the man– she unquestionably appears to think and speak sanguinely/nostalgically about Mao, obviously feels a kind of respectful reverence for him in general.

    • Methodistmin
    • Posted October 22, 2009 at 5:34 am
    • Permalink

    Thanks for the suggestion, Zack. For some reason I am having trouble getting you tube selections on my computer; It cuts out. I do actually have a feel for body language and for other unspoken cues since my background is in the theatre. I don’t think Anita Dunn was making a joke. I think she was serious. I expect she was just trying to cover her backside in claiming that. On a political discussion board I go on a conservative mentioned about how many millions Mao killed. They said 20 milion or more. Another self identified liberal said, “Prove it.” I couldn’t wrap my head around the fact that someone wanted to debate what the number was without actually ever saying that Mao was a souless mass murdering tyrant. That anyone else would say “But we must separate the man’s political views from his actions” is scary. Should be separate Stalin’ s political views from his actions?!! This is one example of the kind of person Obama surrounds himnself with. They ARE his mainstream.
    And yes, she could have chosen any number of actually estimable thinkers to praise. How about William wilberforce? He was a political thinker and (like Mother Theresa) a person of faith. But Mao and Mother Theresa?!!

  8. Methodistmin: No, it absolutely was not a “joke,” and that backpedalling remark by Dunn makes her patently a liar on top of sycophant to a mass-murderer. There is not the slightest whisper of irony or jocularity going down in that speech; on the contrary it is the quintessence of sincere earnestness.

    • Methodistmin
    • Posted October 22, 2009 at 5:58 am
    • Permalink

    And The MSM doesn’t care and people who voted for Obama are largely uniformed. Many of the college students who were listenng to Dunn may no have no real clue who Mao was other than that he was a communist and the head of China, and “Yay” communism is theoretically a good thing to them. It may be when it is done by small groups of people of good will. On a massive scale it has been a unmitigated disaster. Mao is ancient history to them. I know someone who lived under Mao. Her college professor father was killed by the communists. Moa’s henchmen kiled multiple millions of intellectuals. She and her mother were beaten and forced to work in the fields. They almost starved. She has NO admiration of Mao, and although I haven’t seen her in yet a few years she would be horrified by some dimwitted American admiring him.

    • Steve T
    • Posted October 22, 2009 at 7:01 am
    • Permalink

    Chris E-
    Calling us “You kleptocratic babykiller lovers”-?

    Where did you learn those big 12-cent words like ‘kleptocratic’-?
    - Indoctrination in some university class-?
    - By some man-hating fe-person, with a short butch hair cut and comfortable shoes-?
    (Devon’s ex-lover)

    Your leftist hypocrisy & ignorance is so blatant and shallow, it defies words.

    As it has passed your ability to comprehend; many parents do NOT want the schools, the public-government schools, to promote partisan views. It happens to be illegal.

    When an NEA agenda driven teacher scripts a sing-a-long for children, worshiping Obama, and directs these little children to sing it – THAT is the most basic example of indoctrination.

    Obviously, it has worked on you, very well (from some years ago)… or is it the effects of drinking bong water-?

    Now, about your sophisticated big 12-cent word [kleptocratic].

    Per capita, per industrial GDP, the US is among the most environmentally clean nations on earth.
    Wow – what a SHOCKER-!!!

    The most awful & destructive pollution on earth is found in Red China and the former Soviet Union.
    This includes nuclear disasters & contamination, and the most dangerous industrial chemicals.
    Also – the ubiquitous red-brown smog that blankets most of the population centers in Red China.
    Remember that the Chi-coms had to shut down large industrial area’s, a few weeks before the last summer Olympic’s-??

    The US has had its mistakes – and has spent huge $$$ cleaning them up.

    As an engineer, I have spent years working on industrial pollution control systems. NO other country comes close to spending what we do (private industry) on pollution controls & prevention.

    If you can be bothered to seek a source of information that is not agenda-driven by the ‘blame America first’ greenies, you can find the proof.

    Go look up: Chelyabinsk – a city in Russia, located just east of the Ural Mountains
    ONE of many, many examples.

    But those facts are likely to contradict your pre-conceived notions – with which you are so comfortable.

    In case you have not noticed the graphic where Zack lives, he likely, as I do, have a very strong appreciation for nature and the wilderness.

    Speaking of “….babykiller lovers”,
    YOUR lovely political culture is behind the tens & tens of millions of babies killed in abortion mills.

    The butcher-bill is somewhere around, or above 50 million killed, since Roe vs. Wade.
    This leftist-driven ‘freedom of choice’ bilge has caused the deaths equivalent to the populations of whole countries.

    Are you proud of that-?

    Chris – looking in the mirror, deep down, must be uncomfortable for folks like you-

    • Methodistmin
    • Posted October 22, 2009 at 8:06 am
    • Permalink

    ken-

    Your comemnts about “baby killer” are completely off topic as well as being blatantly confrontational and mean spirited. This kind of thing is obvious trolling behavior. I would ask you to please stop using that and I was opposed to the Vietnam War-though being a young teen in the last years of the war. My mother marched against the war. I do have friends who did serve and they don’t deserve such calumny directed towards them.

    • Methodistmin
    • Posted October 22, 2009 at 8:08 am
    • Permalink

    Thanks, Steve T-for your very informative post on situations in Russia and China.

    • wootabega
    • Posted October 22, 2009 at 8:10 am
    • Permalink

    “On nother note, I have a problem with Anita Dunn saying her favorite political thinker is Mao.”

    ONE OF her favorite. Mao wasn’t Anita Dunn’s sole idol in all concepts of life. No, she just cited one of his beliefs. That doesn’t mean she wants to start mass murders.

    There are Americans out there who admire Napoleon, or Genghis Khan, or Alexander the Great. Even Hitler! Do they love them for their deeds of mass murder or domination? Most likely not, but rather for their incredible influence, or tactics used in war, or other philosophies they held on life.

    I’m pretty sure America promises freedom of expression, and now we have people condemning Anita Dunn for expressing herself freely? That itself seems more Orwellian than anything the Obama Administration is (or rather, isn’t) doing.

    • Methodistmin
    • Posted October 22, 2009 at 8:24 am
    • Permalink

    Sorry, wootebega-

    I don’t care if it is her favorite or one of her favorites. She is feel free to express herself anyway she wants; I am free to express my belief hat I think it is mind boggling she would cite him as a person whose thinking she appreciates. He’s the first one who came to mind?!! I don’t think anyone is saying she shouldn’t speak. They are critiquing WHAT she said and are distubed by this comment coming from a WH advisor.

    • ikabod
    • Posted October 22, 2009 at 8:41 am
    • Permalink

    I guess its one thing to blame people for mass-murder. Its quite another to bring accusations of those who support said mass murderers as no better. However, what those that could have done SOMETHING to stop genocide do they get a pass. Or was Clinton’s Apology good enough for Rwanda? Again, tough decisions for any President. Yet Clinton could have done something rather than ignore it. War isn’t a clean endeavor, people get killed. Yet going after Truman as a mass murderer, is a little disingenuous. We know the consequences if the bombs where not dropped, they surrendered. Or was this a clear example of the US and Japan coming to a peaceful negotiated settlement?

    • Ken
    • Posted October 22, 2009 at 8:48 am
    • Permalink

    “We know the consequences if the bombs where not dropped, they surrendered.”

    What does this even mean?

    • Ken
    • Posted October 22, 2009 at 8:51 am
    • Permalink

    “I do have friends who did serve and they don’t deserve such calumny directed towards them.”

    Unless Steve is one of your friends, you and they have nothing to worry about.

    • ikabod
    • Posted October 22, 2009 at 9:00 am
    • Permalink

    Bombs dropped they DID surrendered. Sorry.

    Had the bombs NOT been dropped the war would have gone on. With invasions of the Japanese home island, in November of 1945. Close to 1 million casualties.

    Hopefully that clarifies my statement.

    • MethodistMin
    • Posted October 22, 2009 at 9:03 am
    • Permalink

    The comment is itself is terrible but I suppose you need to do your little rutine. That’s why I often don’t read all of the posts on this site. So many just degenerate into name calling and sexual put downs.

    Good afternoon and have a pleasant weekend.

    • Max
    • Posted October 22, 2009 at 10:39 am
    • Permalink

    wootabega,
    I don’t think anyone is condemning Dunn’s right to express herself, per se. However, they are condemning the content of her idea–her favorable judgment of Mao (again, the greatest mass-murderer of all time) as a political philosopher. And yes, people have noted, and even admired, the specific talents of other great tyrants; Napoleon’s military genius, for example. But to say that one admires another’s “political philosophy” (i.e, the knowledge, pursuit and implimentation of the good life and society) when that other embraced a genocidal ideology which prescribed the annihilation of millions–well, that’s another thing all together.
    This is an especially disturbing since it is not an isolated case, but forms, as Orwell (among others) noted years ago, part of a general left-wing vulnerability to pernicious ideologies.

    • ikabod
    • Posted October 22, 2009 at 11:51 am
    • Permalink

    Yet the question still remains. What is the lefts fascination with tyrants? From Mao’s standpoint he was doing a great thing. Dragging the Chinese to the 20th century, whether they liked it or….not. The left seems to be saying “Yeah well he killed 70 million, but ya got to give him credit for all the good things he did. Can’t we just focus on the positive here?” (then the typical liberal “washing of hands” response: “Well American Presidents have killed millions too!”) Then we Hitler, Hitler wrote a damned book, that is still revered as a great work by racist the world over. Yet Moa is seen as a great philosopher? I’m just saying, if your going to condemn Hitler (AND HE SHOULD BE) Mao should be considered at the same level as Hitler. If not please explain to me why not?

    • ikabod
    • Posted October 22, 2009 at 11:53 am
    • Permalink

    Jeese Gotta fix my typing!
    “Then we Hitler, Hitler wrote a damned book,”

    Should read:

    Then we HAVE Hitler, Hitler wrote a damned book,

    Ugh!

    • wootabega
    • Posted October 22, 2009 at 1:38 pm
    • Permalink

    I’m not saying I admire Mao. I’m saying you shouldn’t condemn someone for expressing a belief that they explicitly mention they learned from him. There’s a difference between admiration and idolizing.

    And the quote from Mao that Anita used was a quote she picked up from Republican strategist Lee Atwater. Should we condemn him as an un-American genocidest, too?

    • Max
    • Posted October 22, 2009 at 2:12 pm
    • Permalink

    I don’t know if Atwater ever made that claim about Mao; i.e., that the latter was of his favorite political philosophers. If he did, he certainly deserves all the ridicule and contempt now being heaped on Dunn. But what I do know is what she said, and that is unequivocal. Therefore, whatever Atwater’s feelings were about Mao, I don’t see how this could have been merely a case of her “quoting” him, so to speak.
    And, it goes without saying that if Mao really had been Atwater’s favorite philosopher, he would have been a real conservative anomaly, since we conservatives are traditionally (pun, intended…) death on communism.
    Finally, again, one can no more claim to “admire”) Mao as a favorite political philosopher, than an ethicist. Neither role (traditionally understood) is consonant with genocide.

    • Ken
    • Posted October 22, 2009 at 2:12 pm
    • Permalink

    “Should we condemn him as an un-American genocidest, too?”

    Probably

    • ikabod
    • Posted October 22, 2009 at 2:23 pm
    • Permalink

    I’m finding it very hard to find anything that Lee Atwater did to cause famine, genocide or even racial cleansing anywhere. What am I missing here? Furthermore Wootabega, I’m not saying you do admire Mao but his name sure does seem to pop up from time to time within liberal conversations in a positive light. I still can’t get an answer as to why.

    • ikabod
    • Posted October 22, 2009 at 2:30 pm
    • Permalink

    Atwater praising him says something about his character too.

    • Max
    • Posted October 22, 2009 at 2:38 pm
    • Permalink

    Did he? Where is the quote?

    • wootabega
    • Posted October 22, 2009 at 2:44 pm
    • Permalink

    “I’m finding it very hard to find anything that Lee Atwater did to cause famine, genocide or even racial cleansing anywhere.”

    And Anita Dunn has?

    • Max
    • Posted October 22, 2009 at 2:51 pm
    • Permalink

    Does anyone have the Atwater quote?

    • Ken
    • Posted October 22, 2009 at 3:05 pm
    • Permalink

    “The comment is itself is terrible”

    Awwww…Am I not being politically correct enough for you? Typical conservative.

    • Max
    • Posted October 22, 2009 at 3:13 pm
    • Permalink

    So nobody knows what, or even if, Atwater said what Dunn is claiming?

    • ikabod
    • Posted October 22, 2009 at 3:39 pm
    • Permalink

    Max-
    Its not that he said its what Dunn felt at the time, feelings are whats important here.

    If your going to fact check, well then your know better than Fox news!

    • Max
    • Posted October 22, 2009 at 4:24 pm
    • Permalink

    Nobody knows?
    Going once…going twice…

  9. Truman? Seriously? Do you have any clue how many more people would have been killed if we had invaded Japan instead of dropping the bomb?

    • Sarah
    • Posted October 22, 2009 at 7:26 pm
    • Permalink

    No, and neither does anyone else. There’s no telling what the Japanese would have done, nobody can predict the future.

    Besides, that’s a shitty excuse. Imagine if we were at war with Russia, and things were going poorly for us. The Russians are poised for invasion to end the war. I have no doubt that every American would fight to the last man, woman, and child to repel the invaders, just as we assume of the WWII Japanese, and that the invasion would be bloody and costly for both sides of the conflict. Would the Russians be justified in nuking our cities in order to force an unconditional surrender? Would the pretense that it was done to possibly save millions of lives console you as our greatest cities and the people living in them were burned to rubble in an instant? I doubt many of you would say they would be.

    Besides, that’s just saying that the ends justify the means, and we all know who else believed that.

    • Steve T
    • Posted October 22, 2009 at 7:35 pm
    • Permalink

    Vegas AG-
    You are posing a question that is far too unwelcome to the ‘blame the US’ crowd, for dropping the A-bombs on Japan.

    Based on the growing rate of military causalities as we fought closer to Japan, a minimum of 1 million US military causalities were projected, not to mention million’s of Japanese killed, or who would commit suicide.
    The loss of life in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were a small fraction of that.

    Those facts tend to contradict the drama-queen bilge from the ‘weep for Hiroshima’ liberals.

    After visiting the Arizona Memorial at Pearl Harbor, several folks have told me they would have dropped a dozen more A-bombs on Japan.

    So much for competing emotions.

    …and if you are to direct at confronting their liberalism, poor little Chris E might not answer you anymore… and you can shed the tears I have-!

    • wootabega
    • Posted October 22, 2009 at 8:04 pm
    • Permalink

    Yeah, why should be people consider Hiroshima and Nagasaki a shameful act? It was only hundreds of thousands of Japanese casualties.

    Max asked for presidents that could be considered “mass murderers”. By basic definition of the term, Truman’s executive order of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings qualifies him for such a title. Forget about justifications. Murder is murder. Is it ever really right? It’s pointless now to say, “If he didn’t kill hundreds of thousands, millions would have died instead!” because it’s all in the past. You can’t change the past and incidentally you can’t accurately surmise what would have occurred if it had been changed.

    To be fair, World War II was an era of extremely difficult choices and the bombings of those Japanese cities must have been the most difficult. Unlike someone like Hitler, Truman didn’t commit murder because of hatred for his victims; he didn’t believe that hundreds of thousands of Japanese people should just be exterminated like vermin. Truman simply just made the choice he thought was best given the situation.

    • Steve T
    • Posted October 22, 2009 at 8:43 pm
    • Permalink

    Wootabega-
    Your blissful and dismissive assertion, “Forget about justifications. Murder is murder.” – is a terrible & (typically) ignorant glossing-over of the realities of warfare.

    To equate military actions, in wartime conditions, as the same as “murder”, betrays a broad ignorance of history, and betrays the comfortable civilian-ignorant cushiness of those who cannot appreciate where their freedom originates.

    From the Ten commandments, the original Hebrew is; ” Thou shall not do murder”.
    Killing, under many different justifiable conditions, is NOT the moral equivalent.
    If you doubt me, go research the established laws of land warfare.
    Further, some old-fashioned bible study will also back this up.

    Ever hear the expression, “Freedom is not free”-?

    Both Japan and Nazi Germany were working on an atomic bomb, and they would have, quickly as possible, dropped one on a US city.
    Did you know that-??

    We developed our A-bombs first, and as Japan was the last enemy still engaged, they got two Air-’FedEx’ delivered packages (Fat Man and Little Boy).

    For you to claim that Truman was a mass murderer, is grotesquely absurd, and betrays a vast unfamiliarity with the significant facts of the end of WWII.

    Too bad – WE WON-!

    • Max
    • Posted October 23, 2009 at 7:33 am
    • Permalink

    As I wrote before:
    “…people have noted, and even admired, the specific talents of other great tyrants; Napoleon’s military genius, for example. But to say that one admires another’s “political philosophy” (i.e, the knowledge, pursuit and implimentation of the good life and society) when the person in question embraced a genocidal ideology which prescribed the annihilation of millions–well, that’s another thing all together.”
    And:
    “…again, one can no more claim to ‘admire’) Mao as a favorite political philosopher, than as an ethicist. Neither role (traditionally understood) is consonant with genocide.”
    Thus, the quoting of Mao, or even admiring specific (non-ideological) abilities (as one might admire Hitler’s early strategic victories, or his revitalization of the German economy) are light years from claiming him as a favorite “political philosopher.”
    And, again, I think it should be stressed that perhaps the most convincing aspect to this whole Dunn episode is that she represents just another in a very long line of Western “progressive” admirers of communism. “Fellow Travelers”, they were called during the Fifties, and after the fall of the Soviet Union and the subsequent release of the Venona Files (among many others…) we learned just how numerous and deeply embedded they were in places like the State Dept.. Earlier, Lenin had referred to those of this mind-set as “useful idiots”, and the brilliant work of MIT sociologist Paul Hollander, and historian Robert Conquest have taught us much regarding the who, where, why and whens of this bizarre historical phenomenon.

    • MethodistMin
    • Posted October 23, 2009 at 7:46 am
    • Permalink

    Obama has a quite a few Maoists and socialists in his ranks. This article also contins some chilling quotes from Mao-who was a pathological narcissist. Obama is a narcissist too, in my opinion.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/all_the_presidents_mao.html

    • Ken
    • Posted October 23, 2009 at 10:52 am
    • Permalink

    Sweet, quotes that have been taken out of context, had words added to them, and are loaded with ellipses. That’s some damning evidence.

    • MethodistMin
    • Posted October 23, 2009 at 11:14 am
    • Permalink

    Sure, Ken, Spin away. Mao was a great guy, and if someone critiques your hero it must be taken out of context:

    This book talks about the evil Moa: Mao: The Unknown Story by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday
    and this article gives some samples

    http://www.rense.com/general65/mao.htm

    • MethodistMin
    • Posted October 23, 2009 at 11:29 am
    • Permalink

    Or you might take a look at an article called. ” “The Tyrant Mao, as told by his doctor”, an article from the October 2, 1994 edition of the NYT. You can get it online. The Dr. LiZhisui who was with Mao from 1955 to 1982 calls him an “iritable, manipulative egotist incapable of human feeling.” He adds that Mao saw everybody as a subject, a slave. The mistake of the people purged was in seeing themselves as sequal to Mao.”

    And this is the man that a number of Obama’s associates admire.

    Since I won’t convince you that my views of Mao are correct, and you won’t convince me what a great guy was, and since your comments to Steve indicate that you’re trolling, I will end the conversation now.

    Take care.

    • MethodistMin
    • Posted October 23, 2009 at 12:32 pm
    • Permalink

    Just on note, Ken. I know nothing about the site Rense. I googled a reference to Moa and that’s what came up, and that’s all I looked at. You didn’t adress the crtiques made about Mao. In addition, as you know nothing about my personal background or antecedents, I suggest you might re-evalaute suggesting that I’m anti-Semetic.

    Goobye; Emjoy your trolling.

    • Manuel Calavera
    • Posted October 23, 2009 at 1:49 pm
    • Permalink

    He has a point you know. Ellipsis, selective quoting, and adding words does not a good argument make. I’m not trying to say Mao was the greatest guy ever, far from it. For a more favorable example, people do that to Rush to make him seem like the next Grand Wizard. Is it fair? No, no matter who it’s applied to.

  10. No one here is praising Mao or endorsing all the people he killed and oppressed.

    But neither are the people quoting him, so I suppose if you’re going to claim that one group loves Mao, you might as well say everyone loves Mao.

    So why do YOU want to have Chairman Mao’s babies, MethodistMin? Don’t you know of the horrors he inflicted on China? Why do you insist on loving him so?

    • MethodistMin
    • Posted October 23, 2009 at 2:06 pm
    • Permalink

    Moa said a lot of things; I assume those that apprecaite his thought could quote phrases that would make him sound rather like a boy scout leader. He murdred millions and millions of people And what makes Ken an expert on what is misquoted? If he has Mao’s words by heart he can provide the quotes.

    And I neither read of listen to Rush Limbaugh.

    And I will give absolutely no more time to Ken or anyone who calls me or will call a dumbass. That kind of trolling is unacceptable and I have no intention in reading further vebal abuse.

    • Ken
    • Posted October 23, 2009 at 2:43 pm
    • Permalink

    “That kind of trolling is unacceptable and I have no intention in reading further vebal abuse.”

    How many times have you mentioned not reading comments here? I think I’ve noticed you babbling about your apparent illiteracy several times over the course of the last few comics.

    • MethodistMin
    • Posted October 23, 2009 at 3:26 pm
    • Permalink

    Manuel-

    Of course, hero is hyperbole in respect to the posters here. I don’t know if they actually regard Mao as a hero or not. Not that anyone else here EVER engages in hyperbole mind you ;^) But I do think if a person names Mao as their favorite-or one of their favorite political philosophers-then yes, they do admire them. They might not admire everything they did, but in some sense they are a hero to them. I do think it very signifigant that of all the political philosophers Dunn might have named, Mao is the first one to come to her mind. Some of the liberals here and elsewhere don’t seem to care much what he actually did with his political philosophy-that if he endorsed worker’s rights and lifting up the poor and bringing China into the 20th century-that that negates everything evil and reprehensible which he did, People on other boards said, “Well, gee, he didn’t kill as many people as you conservatives suggest. Prove that he did.” That indeed, is their first remark about Mao. At what point do we not say “It doesn’t matter what high flown philosophy a person has if they end up as a murderous tyrant?” That was Dunn’s first choice as a person to admire?!! That is chilling; It is not out of line with a number of Obama’s other advisors, however; That too is chilling to anyone who is aware of the murderous history of communism around the world.

    Take care.

    • thesecolorsdontrun
    • Posted October 23, 2009 at 4:51 pm
    • Permalink

    @methodistmin:
    “I give you credit, Zack. I find some of Sarah’s posts incomprehensible such as the one above and it has nothing to do with typos…”

    I’m going to be completely blunt here, methodistmin. can you even read?
    Put down the Dragon speech-to-text programs, your fraud is at an end.

    • MethodistMin
    • Posted October 23, 2009 at 5:37 pm
    • Permalink

    I type very poorly; I’m hardly illiterate. I apprecaiate your gentle and tolerant attitude expressed here ,especially since I haven’t even addressed a post to you. Gotta love some of these liberals. Thanks goodness people like Manuel can have a civil conversation without the insults.

    Tata.

    • MethodistMin
    • Posted October 23, 2009 at 6:06 pm
    • Permalink

    In additiion, nonrunning colors-

    As your sole post on this thread consisted of asking whether I could read and calling me a fraud, and one of your “highlights” on another one consisted of asking another poster whether they wanted to engage in some “non discriminatory truck dragging” I’ve now assigned you to the troll category as well. I’ll really miss your posts, but you can always log on with another handle if you haven’t already.

    • wootabega
    • Posted October 23, 2009 at 7:06 pm
    • Permalink

    I love everybody. Except you, MethodistMin. I literally love every person on this planet that exists, has existed or ever will exist, except for you.

    • Ken
    • Posted October 23, 2009 at 10:04 pm
    • Permalink

    Woot wins the prize for the best post on here.

  11. Methodistmin: Just remember, as I do, that the more intensely that rotten, demented or hateful people dislike you, the more indication it is that you are on the right track in your thinking.

    • Ken
    • Posted October 24, 2009 at 5:13 am
    • Permalink

    I guess that means Obama is on the best of all possible tracks.

  12. Funny one, Ken; touche. But your premise is a bit off. Obama, with his crowded canvas of past and present Communist, corrupt, anti-Semitic and/or anti-American close cohorts and mentors, would demonstrably represent the “hateful” figure in my hypothesis. His unhealthy virulence toward, for example, Fox News (and probably most of the people who watch it) demonstrates this unwholesome resentfulness.

    • Steve T
    • Posted October 24, 2009 at 7:53 am
    • Permalink

    Zack,
    To borrow a phrase, it appears I am living ‘rent free’ in Kens little mind.

    What a roach-motel (yuk-!)

    Hey Ken – do you think woot “loves” Truman, and the crew of the Enola Gay and Boxcar (those are the names of the B-29′s that dropped the A-bombs on Hiroshima & Nagasaki) -?

    • wootabega
    • Posted October 24, 2009 at 8:49 am
    • Permalink

    “Hey Ken – do you think woot “loves” Truman, and the crew of the Enola Gay and Boxcar (those are the names of the B-29’s that dropped the A-bombs on Hiroshima & Nagasaki) -?”

    Did you not read my post? I love everybody except MethodistMin. Guess that reading comprehension is one of the trademark conservative weaknesses.

    • Steve T
    • Posted October 24, 2009 at 8:57 am
    • Permalink

    Woot-
    What “comprehension” you libs have (or “feel” you have), for your sweeping generalities, is the point you miss.

    Shall we assume your sweeping ‘love-in’ list includes; Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Vlad the Impaler, Ted Bundy…?

    • MethodistMin
    • Posted October 24, 2009 at 9:09 am
    • Permalink

    Thanks, Zack

    I appreciate the word of support.

    I really do know some wonderful liberal people. They have never mentioned going on political blogs where their first comment off the cuff as a new poster was “You have a hard on?” or posting one line insults and that’s the entire substance of their political “discourse”. In fact, these liberal friends are almost all clergy; They know that I’m not on board with Obama, but we manage to discuss other things. We can get together, have holy Communion, pray, talk about the churches we serve, etc. As I said, I have more friends who are liberal than conservative. One of my closest friends-not clergy-when I told her that was a liberal in recovery said laughing, “You have to stop listening to FOX news.” I told her that I don’t listen to FOX news and then I laughed. Perhaps some of these folks are fine when they are not on anonymous boards. I don’t know what it is about boards that people feel they’ve won if they can say the most hateful things possible and get a response, but that’s the MO of trolls.

    I have been goinng on political boards for several years now. The trolls are really apparent. I’m just tired of playing games with them. Then again, there are also some people-not trolls-who manage to make quite some good points but seem to be rather irritable folks. Maybe that’s a result of fighting on political blogs for so long.

    As far as Sarah, I did re-read her post and it wasn’t incomprehensible. Perhaps I read it too fast the first time and she deserve an apology on my part.

    • MethodistMin
    • Posted October 24, 2009 at 9:19 am
    • Permalink

    And as far as the trolls, the list is growing of liberal trolls whose posts I simply scroll past, and I’m fine with that. ;^) Trolls are so transparent. If I’m here long enough and he doesn’t call me a “dumbass” Manuel might be the only liberal whose posts I continue to read and and whom I converse with-except for new people who might arrive.

  13. What is anonymous about using my primary e-mail address and my real name and linking to my primary website etc.?

    If “saying the most hateful things possible to get a response” is the MO of a troll, I am pretty sure that Diversity Lane itself is consistently a “troll” comic strip. Steve T is a troll too, albeit a supportive and patriotic troll who can barely resist suggesting that all liberals and sometimes me in specific are ignorant homosexual communist drug addicts.

    There are certainly people making drive-by insults on the site, but those cut both ways. It’s also worth noting that you and everyone else seem content to comment on those drive-by insults frequently and copiously, but are apparently far less interested in responding to anything of substance.

    I understand you’ve all already made your decision that Anita Dunn is a Mao worshiping communist because she did something that a plethora of Republican politicans have also done. I understand you have no interest in examining your beliefs. I just wish you’d admit that.

    • MethodistMin
    • Posted October 24, 2009 at 9:50 am
    • Permalink

    Please chill out, Chris-

    I didn’t mention you.

    But actually, I did examine my beliefs. I finally saw the you tube video of Dunn speaking and I agree with Zack. Her approval of Mao is quite obvious. In addition, Chris, I have spent a lot of time examining my beliefs since I always voted Democratic and would have called myself a liberal until sometime in 2007. That was 30 years as a liberal Dem. I was not working full time during more than a year and a half of the election cycle. I originally was a liberal who supported John Edawrds for President. The time off from full time work meant that I had hours and hours of time to read about Obama-his mentors and associates, his tactics in Chicago, his prasing and support of dictators. I read blogs by investigative journalists from Chicago. What I learned about Obama and what I saw from liberals who torched Sarah Palin’s church, sent white powder to Mormons in CA and called with death threats turned me off. What I saw from so called liberal feminsists and male liberals who viciously attacked Sarah Palin made me reexamine the beliefs I had held about liberals for over 30 years. I examined them so much that I never, ever wish to be called a liberal again. There are, however, still some issues I would agree with on liberals about.

    And actually, I’ve made quite a number of posts of substance, such as this one.

    Take care

    • MethodistMin
    • Posted October 24, 2009 at 9:58 am
    • Permalink

    And No, I disagree with you. I don’t think Steve is a troll. His argues quite effectively. He seems to be a person of quite strong beliefs who well sustantiates his POV. Is he little Mary Sunshine? No, but then neither are his discussion partners. Is he combative and can he be rude? Yes, but so can his discussion partners. In addiiton, he generally stays away from one line insult posts which to my mind is one of the hallmarks of a troll. If you have issues with Steve, I suggest you address him directly.

  14. Great cartoon, Zack! Anyone who watches the Anita Dunn speech in full can make no mistake that she’s genuinely praising Mao, both his methods and results. Which makes it telling – and chilling – that we see her using those same methods to try to control our news media (and with considerable success).

    • wootabega
    • Posted October 24, 2009 at 10:33 am
    • Permalink

    “Shall we assume your sweeping ‘love-in’ list includes; Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Vlad the Impaler, Ted Bundy…?”

    You really didn’t read my post did you?

    I. Love. Everyone. Except. MethodistMin.

    Is there any clearer way I can spell it out?

    • MethodistMin
    • Posted October 24, 2009 at 11:41 am
    • Permalink

    Simply because I wasn’t actually thinking of you, Chris. Sorry; You temporarily slipped my mind. We don’t chat that much

    I suggest if Steve gets on your nerves you skip his posts. Nobody is forcing you to be verbally abused and come back for more, although we all want to make our points known. The nature of people on politics board is that we tend to think, “If I just say this long enough or repeatedly the people who disagree with me will FINALLY see the light.” ;^)

    People who make a point of saying, “You’re a dumbass” as the main point of their post are ludicrous trolls, as are people whose posts are redundant attempts to get one’s attention through various means. Trolls are so transparent. Anyone with enough time on political boards can spot them a mile off. People who make a substantive post and then add, “You’re a jackass” are rude. Is either conducive to diallogue? No. However, in the choice between trolls and people who are intelligent but snarky I suppose I’d choose the latter.

    • Manuel Calavera
    • Posted October 24, 2009 at 11:45 am
    • Permalink

    Steve is trolling pretty hard then, he is a bit of a dick.

    • MethodistMin
    • Posted October 24, 2009 at 11:48 am
    • Permalink

    I already gave my opinion of Steve-which is that I don’t think he’s a troll. I’m not his parent. You boys can all try to work this out among yourselves. ;^)

  15. The problem with ‘ignoring’ people who make a point but do so in an overwhelmingly rude/condescending manner is that other people will then post to indicate that your lack of response is due to being so cowed by their brilliant rhetoric that you are too embarassed to respond.

    This has empirically happened when I have ignored Steve T. Zack himself suggested I had run away scared. I suppose I could ignore both of them?

    • MethodistMin
    • Posted October 24, 2009 at 12:17 pm
    • Permalink

    Well, if people think you’re scared, that’s their issue. They don’t really know what your motivations are. Why not say, “I just choose not to respond because I don’t choose to allow myself to be verbally abused. When people stop the verbal abuse I will answer.” I guess you and Steve have a history; I am fairly new here so am not aware of it. As far as Zack goes, I think he’s a man of strong opinions, but I don’t think
    he’s a name caller. He think he just sloughs off most of the trolls who come her simply to troll.

    My point is, Chris, is that this is site for cartoons from a conservative perspective. It’s probably not going to work for liberals to try to convert the poor unfortunate ignorant and benighted conservatives or recovering liberals to the glorious light of liberalism. ;^) When Obama said, “A light is going to shine down from above and you are going to vote for Obama” I was in the state as a campiagn worker for Edwards. That did it for me, and I knew that I wouldn’t vote for him, no matter if I had a D after my name or not.

    • MethodistMin
    • Posted October 24, 2009 at 12:19 pm
    • Permalink

    Whoops; I meant, “I (Not he) think he just sloughs off most of the trolls who come here simply to troll.”

    • wootabega
    • Posted October 24, 2009 at 9:13 pm
    • Permalink

    I love Hitler, and Hitler loves me.

    He’s not so bad. Hitler just needs someone to believe in him.

    • Steve T
    • Posted October 24, 2009 at 9:47 pm
    • Permalink

    Woot-
    Expect this revealing expression to hang with you-

    Your soul and character is putrid and disgusting.

    • MethodistMin
    • Posted October 25, 2009 at 5:28 am
    • Permalink

    People should just slough off trolls that come on here simply in order to get a rise out of people. That’s the best way to frustrate them.

    • Manuel Calavera
    • Posted October 25, 2009 at 6:10 am
    • Permalink

    I see you watched Venture Bros. too woot.

    • thesecolorsdontrun
    • Posted October 26, 2009 at 1:35 pm
    • Permalink

    The non discriminatory truck dragging comment was in response to another poster who was basically insinuating that happening to sing a song 8 months ago, during black history month, about our first african american president, is exactly the kind of intolerant racism that Martin Luther King was rallying against.

    i mean, if his previous statement isn’t racially loaded, then neither was mine, after all, I totally mentioned that it was non-discriminatory. :p

    • thesecolorsdontrun
    • Posted October 26, 2009 at 1:37 pm
    • Permalink

    and methodistmin,

    in all seriousness, no venom intended, are you a member of the clergy?

    • Steve T
    • Posted October 27, 2009 at 3:51 am
    • Permalink

    MethodistMin-
    I do agree with you,…
    Sometimes I fail to practice it~


Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 59 other followers

%d bloggers like this: