Welcome to PatsFans.com

Mao (again)

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Harry Boy, Oct 21, 2009.

  1. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    40,368
    Likes Received:
    203
    Ratings:
    +720 / 2 / -9

    Comrade Obama and his "Comrade Czars"

    Good Grief… ANOTHER Mao-Praising Obama Czar Caught on Tape (Video)
    Gateway Pundit
     
  2. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,974
    Likes Received:
    199
    Ratings:
    +429 / 12 / -26

    "We agree with Mao", speaking for the UAW for whom he was employed at the time... "Political power comes from the barrel of a gun"... and "if you want a friend get a dog."

    FYI that is the cornerstone of Neo Con Philosophy...

    Is hardly praise for Mao and his philosophies.... but as soon as the fellow righties get up, they will google long and hard for more of this revolutionary stuff...

    If one agreed with Bush in his response to 9-11, does that make one a "Bushist".. you folks need to get a grip, keep googling though.

    Tune in to Herr Beck tonite, he will have the really big jar of vicks as this has the potential to be a real tear jerker...
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2009
  3. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,929
    Likes Received:
    111
    Ratings:
    +252 / 8 / -12

    Of course Mao applied this little ditty to DOMESTIC politics, please cite an example where a 'neocon' applied this approach to domestic politics. Please be specific.

    Why are communist always the thing obamanoids refer to when public speaking, why not Jefferson, or Adam Smith?


    THis guy seems to agree with Obama's friends like B Dorn and Bill Ayers his terrorist mentors...
     
  4. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    40,368
    Likes Received:
    203
    Ratings:
    +720 / 2 / -9

  5. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,974
    Likes Received:
    199
    Ratings:
    +429 / 12 / -26

    Bomb them all, sort it out afterwards... peace throuigh firepower... you obviously have not been paying attention to the arms race... that is basic Mao philosophy...
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2009
  6. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    15,919
    Likes Received:
    334
    Ratings:
    +573 / 11 / -4

    #24 Jersey

    What the hell is a "traditional" American? Somehow I doubt it's The Oglala Sioux or the Cherokee he's referring to.

    Oh wait, they already lost their nation.

    Maybe he means the people who dominated them - making them the new and improved Domi-Nation.

    But that would be the party which won the election, correct?

    Because they dominated the other party and showed their domination by winning.

    Or maybe he just means him and his 6 friends.
     
  7. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    40,368
    Likes Received:
    203
    Ratings:
    +720 / 2 / -9

    Why is there no "million man march on washington" for the Cherokee, I wonder what kind of hell would be raised in this country if we had "reservations" for other minority's, why don't we see more Cherokee's in TV Commercials or in cartoons, wouldn't it be great if we could have our "First Cherokee President"

    Will Congress Ever Have A Cherokee Caucus, why are we so good to some minority's and completely ignore others, where is the old liberal phiosophy of "Justice And Equality For All" gone, I think Barbara Walters should put a Cherokee women on The View.

    GOD BLESS RUNNING WOLF AND HIS WIFE LITTLE PORCUPINE
     
  8. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,929
    Likes Received:
    111
    Ratings:
    +252 / 8 / -12




    The spin has descended to the level of the pathetic and incoherent. Just accept the notion that the administration is rife with communist and be proud of your guys.

    BTW R Trumka was an organizer for the Socialist Workers Party in the 70's. I had a friend who was in the YSA and did summer work for the SWO under Trumka when he was in college
     
  9. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,675
    Likes Received:
    312
    Ratings:
    +611 / 7 / -7

    Rah-rah, sis boom bah. "Oath Keepers." Where were "Oath Keepers" when the last administration declared the Geneva Conventions, which we are a party to, to be null and void "when we say so?" That's an abrogation of law by presidential fiat, as were various provisions of the two patriot acts. And when is it time for a "New American Revolution"? Not when the state can pry into your personal information. Not when we create blacklists that put peaceful anti-war groups under active government surveillance. Not when the state is mixed with the church in progressively more anti-religious freedom concoctions (see "the office of faith-based initiatives," the rape of the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954, or any number of pro-religious measures ramped up regardless of party since the 1950s...)

    No, we need a "new American revolution" if one elitist paramilitary clique believes there is a threat that people won't have enough guns to shoot one another at a rate sufficient to ensure our freedom... (from what? lack of gun violence?)

    Selective oath-keepers, in other words. We swear an oath to the parts of the constitution, that with no judicial, legal, or constitutional training beyond "Schoolhouse Rock," we believe to be the important bits-- despite the dictates of chain of command, despite the fact that we are active-duty military (the most troubling part, since the military, like civilian adminsitrative government, is specifically supposed to be non-partisan -- part of the state's machinery, not the decision-making apparatus.)

    "Power comes from the barrel of a gun." Sounds to me like we've identified the real Maoists here. My thanks to Mr. Buchanan for pointing that out, though his intent is obviously otherwise.

    It is instructive to note that Buchanan's rant is specifically a lament that White Christian Conservatives are seeing their grip on power slipping away, and are angry that they find themselves in said position.

    In this he agrees with President Obama. Upon his election, he was dead-on: "Don't think for a minute that power concedes."

    It doesn't. Despite the waning of the anti-religious-freedom forces that peaked from around 1980-2000, the state-as-religious-cheerleader forces continue to fight to denude us of religious liberty. Despite the fact that Whites will simply be a plurality rather than a majority in most of our lifetimes, those who, like Buchanan, would like the society to be a contest among races, with Whites favored as in "the glorious past," continue their complaint when we approach equality, that equality is really "keeping the white man down," or "the white man losing 'his' [sic] country." Despite the epic failure of pure market capitalism in the autumn of 2008, we continue to characterize any regulatory intervention (other than corporate gifts in the trillions) as "socialism."

    Buchanan's message is loud and clear: He wants the house divided. He wants the common good to mean the common good of white Christians. He sees America as white Christians and "those other guys." Or, to answer the predictable and obviously specious argument that he is merely characterizing others, not cheerleading their cause: he gives voice to this sentiment, and merely states facts.

    What Buchanan ignores, and what the "oath-keepers" ignore, is that "traditional Americans" are a tiny elitist minority.

    The Americans who oppose fifth columns within our own military are opposed to this view -- be they white or black, Democrats or Republicans.

    The Americans who embrace the common good oppose such a view, regardless of race or gender.

    The Americans who in short are concerned with the future of America are not concerned that this elitist cabal perceive themselves as "losing their nation."

    "We the people" understand that it is our nation too. That's the people who work hard and still have no affordable health care options, the people who have seen their retirement dreams wiped out (no, not the ones that retired at 40... the ones who are 65 and figure they need to give it 5 more years... or just knew from the outset that they would work until they died.)

    That's the people unemployed because the Wall Street leverage machine -- having frozen credit to the real economy and therefore destroyed jobs at an epic pace; having been given trillions specifically to lend it... decided to use that money to go from "too big to fail" to "even bigger," by acquiring one another at an epic pace, rather than extend credit to those outfits in need thereof.

    That's the people who can see the bullsh1t fairy tales of 19th century laissez faire capitalism for what they are... be they white or black. That's the people who remember that we're not trying to close a "fanatisism gap" with the Islamist militants.... that one contribution America has made was specifically to separate church and state, in a large scale democratic republic. (Who needs one more theocracy? Turns out, nobody -- in truth some European nations were on the way to where the US radically turned, upon our nation's inception... but once we went to a secular model Europe quickly followed suit, with Napoleon's not-so-subtle nudging -- and reaped the benefits.)

    I'm sure there are white South Africans who "want their nation back" too. At some point, though, liberal South African whites realized that the idiocy of apartheid could not be supported on pragmatic or other grounds.

    We aren't going back to the good old Jim Crow south, Mr. Buchanan. We aren't going back to neighborhood covenants to keep out blacks and Jews (Oh Jews are okay by themselves, even if they are Christ-killers... but you know who moves in next...) We aren't going back to open job discrimination and asking women "Sure... but when are you taking off time to have a baby?" when they apply for jobs anywhere up from the bottom rung. We aren't going back to back-alley abortions. We aren't going back to "No Dogs or Irish" signs, and we aren't going back to separate drinking fountains. We aren't going back to the "strange fruits" swinging from the trees in the southern U.S., and we aren't going back to the KKK -- founded on identical revanchist grounds after the civil war and re-founded on same grounds at the turn of the last century -- "taking their country back."

    Does it ever go through the minds of the gallant defenders of an imagined golden age, that said golden age was never golden for all of us?

    Does it ever occur to the "oath keepers" that their favorite bit of the constitution is not the only one they swear an oath to, but that they also swear to uphold the bits that describe the presidency and the judicial branch, and the power ascribed to each? Does it occur to them that the constitution did not empower every idiot who really really likes guns, to foment revolution against the US government? Does it occur to them that the judicial branch will do its work in descibing the constitutionality of any given law or executive order... and that the constitution says they have to wait for and abide by said outcomes?

    Or are we simply seeing that power does not, in fact, concede?

    "Power comes from the barrel of a gun." Indeed.

    PFnV
     
  10. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,974
    Likes Received:
    199
    Ratings:
    +429 / 12 / -26

    At one time George W. suggested to Karl Rove that he should read the, "Autobiography of Mao"... does that make them maoists or communists???

    There are more comments here, but you will disregard it does not have the Herr Beck imprimatur of approved blogs..

    Will Beck denounce conservatives who've cited Mao, Lenin, Viet Cong? | Media Matters for America
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>