“Obviously, that’s a challenge that we didn’t quite get to, as we did for the policy. But here’s the reality, David, which is for two years, with Democrats controlling everything, it was kind of Democrats against Democrats and a referendum — there’s now going to be a very clear choice in this town.”Anita Dunn on Meet The Press
You know what Anita you are right, I don't think that the republicans worship Mao. That is a very clear choice.
Posts
5 comments:
You don't really believe Anita Dunn worships Mao do you?
When the President of the United States is getting advice from a woman who looks at a mass murder simply as a philospher that is worth admiration, there is a problem. Do I think she kneels in front of his photo and worship him. I certainly hope not.
This president has surrounded himself with people who have radical views, some of which are Anti-American. You can be democrat, that is fine. But for someone not to have a problem with the people he has working at the white house should be something that all Americans should be worrying about. Van Jones in his words says that he is communist. That is a problem. If it were up to the president he would still be there.
When the Anita Dunn controversy came up, The Young Turks did a segment on it. I watched it back then and have watched it several times since then. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDnOxzWWcWM
In the early 90s, Van Jones said he was a communist. He has not said that he still is one... there is a difference. Read the following article and tell me if you think Van Jones is STILL a communist:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/08/glenn-beck/glenn-beck-says-van-jones-avowed-communist/
Malcolm:
I saw the post you did on Teresa. I thought it was mean and totally uncalled for.
This will be the last time I answer your comments. There was no reason to be cruel, and yes that is what it was.
Are you being serious? If your reaction isn't hypocrisy, there is no such thing as hypocrisy. On a weekly basis, you do posts which lampoon liberals/Democrats. I think many of them are funny. For the ones I don’t find funny, my feelings aren’t based on my political leanings. In the comments section of a post you did August of last year titled “This Clears Up a Lot“, an anonymous commenter said the following:
“And this blog/post accomplishes what? Polarization? Shows what a stupid sense of humor you have? Another insipid blogger with nothing better to do than make fun of other people and put other people down. Bravo!”
You responded by saying:
“We are living in very stressful times right now; you need to be able to laugh. What is it that you object to? Humor in general, or is just that someone would have the audacity to say something about people on the left? Just wondering.”
You were right in what you said about how humor is needed in times like this. My post about Teresa’s mistake was an effort to do something lighter on Diversity Ink for a change. If I wanted to be mean and cruel as you say, I would have taken it to a different level by calling Teresa all sorts of names. That would have been uncalled for. Instead, I let the mistake stand on it’s own in the hope that people would see the humor in it like I did.
My question to you is similar to the one you asked your anonymous commenter. Was my post really mean, cruel, and uncalled for or is your reaction due to the fact that the target was someone on the right?
Post a Comment