President Biden appoints Anita Dunn as Senior Adviser, the same Anita who resigned from Obama's Administration because she openly admires Chairman Mao

Republicans have a values problem. Democrats have no (American) values


The absence of logic on this site is stupefying, in this case Non Sequitur.

Fer fuck's sake I "openly admire" Madonna for what she does in her own sphere, that doesn't mean I like or buy her music. Or is that beyond the comprehension of the OP's tiny little mind?
If the jackal bitch had said her favorite philosopher was Jesus Christ you Christophobic bigots would have screamed and carried on and demanded Obama fire her.
wow, now I'm actually starting to believe that you really don't understand her context. Using Mao and the Mother is like using Judas and Jesus. Two opposites making the same point. Its called irony. I swear, its like talking to grade schoolers on this site. Step it up man and do better!
I don't agree with her analogy. One is good, the other is evil. She's warped. Why would you use an evil person as an admirable model?

Because she admires evil people.
 
Republicans have a values problem. Democrats have no (American) values

Is there supposed to be an issue with this?
This is the part where you play dumb, huh.
Go ahead and state your objections and we will see who is dumb...
Who is her favorite political philosopher?
Did you read the speech she gave? Did the context go over your head?? Jesus, all the tards need is a word and they run with it. At least put a little brain power into it so you don't sound so clueless.
So why are you afraid to say the name of her favorite political philosopher? Still playing dumb.
Not playing dumb at all, quite the opposite as I understand the irony of her point. Anybody with a brain would chuckle at the point she made not stand up and cry commie. I guess it was a good thing she was speaking to a group of graduates who would actually understand that...

"The third lesson and tip actually comes from two of my favorite political philosophers: Mao Zedong and Mother Teresa — not often coupled with each other, but the two people I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point, which is, you're going to make choices; you're going to challenge; you're going to say, 'Why not?'; you're going to figure out how to do things that have never been done before."
So you agree with her that murdering 45 million of your fellow citizens to attain your communist utopia is worth attaining your goal. Cool. She also advised Harvey Weinstein on damage control. Yeah, she's quite a gal.
oh boy the "so" argument. Gutfield was dogging on that cheap tactic yesterday on the Five. Whenever somebody responds to an argument with "so..." it means they are about to regurgitate your point in the most negative light and take it out of context. Its for the weak minded. But it seems as if taking things out of context is your thing... Do it if you must but you're not fooling anybody.
Your first post was a “so” argument.
My first post was a question, I asked and I quote “is there supposed to be an issue with this?”
Where is the “so”?
Right there in the question. Let shorten your question up for you while still keeping the meaning intact.

So?
You’re completely missing the point. That’s ok. ReRead what I explained a “so” argument to be.
I even provided an example. You were that example.
I know! You tried real hard but you just totally missed the point. Keep trying though. You’ll get there
Oh I got there just fine. Watching you try to spin your hypocrisy is entertaining though.
What’s my hypocrisy? and please explain how my question was a “so” argument. asking “so what?” Isn’t a “so” argument. It’s very different as you obviously didn’t understand.
Adding what doesn’t change anything. The what is implied and understood to be there. It’s just an extra word thrown in for no reason.

So
So what?

No difference.

You’re worst nightmare came true. You posted two exact opposite stances in the same thread and either were too stupid to know it or just hoped nobody would notice. There’s no escape from this. Submit, apologize for being an asshole and move on.
 
Mao-era China had no foreign policy, because they were isolated

it was a stranger, simpler time, my friends
 
despite Anita's most fervent efforts, Jean-Paul Sartre remains the world's most famous ever Maoist

i bet y'all didn't know that
 
Mao's great skill was turning the Chinese people into slaves, while making them feel that they were running the show

all the world's most prominent dictators have studied Mao
 
Republicans have a values problem. Democrats have no (American) values

Is there supposed to be an issue with this?
This is the part where you play dumb, huh.
Go ahead and state your objections and we will see who is dumb...
Who is her favorite political philosopher?
Did you read the speech she gave? Did the context go over your head?? Jesus, all the tards need is a word and they run with it. At least put a little brain power into it so you don't sound so clueless.
So why are you afraid to say the name of her favorite political philosopher? Still playing dumb.
Not playing dumb at all, quite the opposite as I understand the irony of her point. Anybody with a brain would chuckle at the point she made not stand up and cry commie. I guess it was a good thing she was speaking to a group of graduates who would actually understand that...

"The third lesson and tip actually comes from two of my favorite political philosophers: Mao Zedong and Mother Teresa — not often coupled with each other, but the two people I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point, which is, you're going to make choices; you're going to challenge; you're going to say, 'Why not?'; you're going to figure out how to do things that have never been done before."
So you agree with her that murdering 45 million of your fellow citizens to attain your communist utopia is worth attaining your goal. Cool. She also advised Harvey Weinstein on damage control. Yeah, she's quite a gal.
oh boy the "so" argument. Gutfield was dogging on that cheap tactic yesterday on the Five. Whenever somebody responds to an argument with "so..." it means they are about to regurgitate your point in the most negative light and take it out of context. Its for the weak minded. But it seems as if taking things out of context is your thing... Do it if you must but you're not fooling anybody.
Your first post was a “so” argument.
My first post was a question, I asked and I quote “is there supposed to be an issue with this?”
Where is the “so”?
Right there in the question. Let shorten your question up for you while still keeping the meaning intact.

So?
You’re completely missing the point. That’s ok. ReRead what I explained a “so” argument to be.
I even provided an example. You were that example.
I know! You tried real hard but you just totally missed the point. Keep trying though. You’ll get there
Oh I got there just fine. Watching you try to spin your hypocrisy is entertaining though.
What’s my hypocrisy? and please explain how my question was a “so” argument. asking “so what?” Isn’t a “so” argument. It’s very different as you obviously didn’t understand.
Adding what doesn’t change anything. The what is implied and understood to be there. It’s just an extra word thrown in for no reason.

So
So what?

No difference.

You’re worst nightmare came true. You posted two exact opposite stances in the same thread and either were too stupid to know it or just hoped nobody would notice. There’s no escape from this. Submit, apologize for being an asshole and move on.
And as I said “so what?” Is not a “so” argument. I explained what a “so” argument was and it apparently went right over your head. So read this slowly and try to comprehend... a “so” argument is a cheap tactic when somebody responds to a point you made with “so” and then follows with a skewed regurgitation of you point casting it in the worst possible light taking your message completely out of context.

for example, if I said I liked to watch NASCAR and somebody responded by saying. “So you are a racist hillbilly that likes to beat your wife?” That would be a “so” argument. Get it now genius or do you need more explaination?
 
Republicans have a values problem. Democrats have no (American) values

There are no more commies, so we have been told.
 
Republicans have a values problem. Democrats have no (American) values

Your weasel-in-chief admires Hitler, so much so, he attempted to emulate him, especially on January 6th. You RWNJs have no problems with that. Some attempted a coup, following his orders.


.
 
This is where we’re headed.

Countless leftist politicians already admit to supporting putting Trump supporters in re-education camps, and forced labor camps.

Joe Zedong or Mao ZeBiden ?

EtGZQdXW8AsJV8T
 
The absence of logic on this site is stupefying, in this case Non Sequitur.

Fer fuck's sake I "openly admire" Madonna for what she does in her own sphere, that doesn't mean I like or buy her music. Or is that beyond the comprehension of the OP's tiny little mind?


Whelp, upon scrolling through I see the OP never came back to defend his fallacy. Hiding in the bushes with Sean Spicer.
So if I openly admire Robert Bird it doesn't mean I'm a racist?!? Good to know.
 

Forum List

Back
Top