Comments on: Mao and Mother Teresa

By: Tom

Tom — Thu, 13 May 2010 17:42:54 +0000

Yes, I did misunderstand. The reason I said it was confusing was because it looked like you were saying something completely uncharacteristic. And now I agree with you.

By: Brianna

Brianna — Thu, 13 May 2010 17:16:11 +0000

Errr… no, you completely misunderstood me. What I said was that what Zinn wrote about the founding fathers, while it WAS NOT TRUE with regards to America, I consider it a valid point about the Chinese. As in, what Zinn wrote was complete and utter nonsense, but if he’d written it of the Chinese, it would have been much truer and made much more sense.

By: Tom

Tom — Thu, 13 May 2010 08:52:50 +0000

Brianna, I agree about the difference between rights and permissions in the way the Chinese system is working today. I’m somewhat confused, though, when you seem to equate the Founding Fathers and the political system of the U.S. with the Chinese Communist Party. Notwithstanding what anyone may have written on the subject, that’s sophistry pure and simple.

By: Brian

Brian — Thu, 13 May 2010 03:29:11 +0000

Lenin was every bit the murderous thug that Stalin was, he just didn’t live long enough to rack up the impressive numbers that Stalin did.

By: Brianna

Brianna — Mon, 10 May 2010 22:39:50 +0000

Tom, I would argue that what’s going on in China is not economic rights, but rather economic permissions. They’ve let up slightly on Communist economic principles in order to keep the system from collapsing entirely, ’cause nobody cares about disobeying government anymore if they’re starving. They’ve also let up on political dissent slightly, provided you do not organize, and on religious epxression, provided it is Party approved. In other words, the Chinese Communist party is allowing some wealth accumulation, private enterprise, and freedom of thought as a way to garner enough support for themselves that they can disregard the billion peasants who are NOT benefiting from the liberalization. If you’ve ever looked at Howard Zinn’s A People’s History, you’ll understand what I mean.

http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinntyr4.html

Basically what he accuses the Founding Fathers of, the Chinese Communist Party has actually done. Also, read Empire of Lies, by Guy Sorman, if you want to see what I mean.

By: Tom

Tom — Mon, 10 May 2010 22:22:41 +0000

Jenn, you’re right that no idea is evil per se. I agree with Brianna, however, that what counts is how ideas work out when put into practice. Ideas like communism and fascism have failed miserably everywhere they’ve been tried because they’re fatally flawed, and there’s no reason to expect that they could ever be successful.

It’s a very old idea that Lenin’s version of communism was good but was transformed into something bad by Stalin. That’s normally heard from apologists for communism who either don’t know the history or assume that others don’t. It always becomes totalitarian and is based on personality cults to important degrees, and it has never benefited the “masses” it purports to serve. The most interesting, and humorous in some senses, example is in China today, which has somehow transmogrified itself into something like a communist free market system. That’s an oxymoron, of course, but it shows the ultimate power of free markets.

By: Brianna

Brianna — Mon, 10 May 2010 22:04:49 +0000

Jenn – please open your eyes and start judging philosophies by their results, not by how pretty their speeches are.

By: Jenn

Jenn — Mon, 10 May 2010 19:40:25 +0000

Going to say this straight out. I agree with 95% of what you’ve said. She is an idiot for saying what she did.

But where are you from? Just curious because you have a horribly closed mind.
Do you know anything real about communism? Lenin made a pretty decent version of communism. It was Stalin who took it too far. Communism itself is not evil at all. It is supposed to give the power to the people. Is that not what democracy is meant to do? I am not saying that is how it goes, in fact it has never been properly implemented.
The point I’m trying to make is that you cannot call an ideology evil. The people who supposedly employ the ideology and turn it into something else are the evil ones. Stalin, Mao, the Viet Cong, they made their own versions of communism. And by the way, you calling communism evil is the same as the Taliban calling democracy evil

By: Brian

Brian — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 01:07:57 +0000

Shut your festering gob, you!!! (trying to remember which Monty Python bit I heard that in).

There is the possibility that Rahm knew and just didn’t care or possibly even quietly agreed with her.

I wonder how she’ll look with cement shoes.

By: Tom

Tom — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 00:55:00 +0000

I was gobsmacked* when I heard what Anita Dunn had said about Mao and Mother Teresa. Even if she’s loony enough to think that way, she ought to be smart enough to keep it to herself. Or maybe she’s just so far off on the left that she didn’t think anyone would take offense.

Obama ought to have Rahm send her a dead fish wrapped in newspaper because I suspect she’s headed under the bus very soon. Or, maybe Obama should send the fish to Rahm for failing so badly to vet the White House staff.

*Don’t you just love the word gobsmacked?

By: Brian

Brian — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:19:40 +0000

I can add nothing except “Well said, Brianna.”

By: larry

larry — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:11:57 +0000

Amen Brianna
Well put to say the least.
I’m delighted to see that someone else can also see through the “Clap Trap” of the Obama camp. The “Big Lie” analogy is especially good. Americans don’t want to accept the fact that bad things can come from one of their own. There will be several that will try to counter your piece with the excuse that it’s still to early to tell or some other nonsense. Far to many prefer not to believe the reality of what’s happening.