Obama's amazing sense of humor

[foxpaws]

Not quite:

Bush is stating philosophical (ideological) beliefs.

Clinton is directly going after what 'they' did.

Which is a big difference.

But, Bush is stating what the government is doing - spending 'your' money. And he is stating that 'you' would be able to spend that money better. Yes, he is stating an ideal - but he is also criticizing government spending, which is what Obama's government is doing.

He is criticizing government spending, Obama's government is spending, therefore he is criticizing Obama's spending...

 

[Kstills]

And she also states that Mother Teresa is a favorite philosopher - she is obviously going for the 'brevity' statement here, both Mao and Mother Teresa have that in common - that is why they are her 'favorites'.

No she is not.

They are her favorite philosophers,

but the two people that I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point, which is, you're going to make choices.

Her point in the discussion is that both Mao and MT believed that you are going to make choices on your own.

You're conflating Dunn's use of 'deliver a simple point' with her making a simple point. The operative phrase is 'my two favorite philosophers', unambiguously delivered.

And to be clear, only a moron would make that association. She deserved to be withdrawn for linking Mt with Mao alone.

So, Kstills - do you believe that Anita is a Catholic? If you believe that she is a revolutionary who hero worships Mao, then you also must believe that she is a Catholic. The same logic would work in both cases.

I don't know enough about Dunn, but I believe Obama associates now and has forever associated with people who do not share core values with the majority of the people in this country. He is, imho, a disgrace to the office.

 

[foxpaws]

but the two people that I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point, which is, you're going to make choices

Both quotes she used were brief, and to the point - she turns to these two people to find statements that are concise, and state one thing - 'your make your own choices'.

It is obvious she is going for the brevity connection - that is why they are favorites, otherwise, you would have to also believe that Mother Teresa is a political philosopher. She wasn't apolitical, but to call her a political philosopher...

Anita is going with the brevity connection...

So, do you follow Beck's logic - do you think it is sound Kstills? If you say you like how someone states something, in this case 'you fight your war, I'll fight mine', you embrace everything that person has done.

So, she would also have to be embracing all of Mother Teresa's work as well - aren't Mao and Mother Teresa sort on the opposite ends of the scale regarding helping humanity? How could she embrace both? She couldn't, because quoting them as favorites doesn't involve also accepting all parts of the person who is being quoted.

 

[fossten]

But, Bush is stating what the government is doing - spending 'your' money. And he is stating that 'you' would be able to spend that money better. Yes, he is stating an ideal - but he is also criticizing government spending, which is what Obama's government is doing.

He is criticizing government spending, Obama's government is spending, therefore he is criticizing Obama's spending...

You're still wrong, no matter how many times you say it.

Bush in that quote is criticizing government spending IN GENERAL. He never once targeted the 'current administration' or 'Obama' or anybody 'currently' in government.

Clinton did.

Your proof by assertion is getting redundant and tiresome. You're being dishonest and you probably are too stupid to realize it this time. Blinded by your loyalty to Obama and all that.

 

[foxpaws]

You're still wrong, no matter how many times you say it.

Bush in that quote is criticizing government spending IN GENERAL. He never once targeted the 'current administration' or 'Obama' or anybody 'currently' in government.

Clinton did.

Your proof by assertion is getting redundant and tiresome. You're being dishonest and you probably are too stupid to realize it this time. Blinded by your loyalty to Obama and all that.

So, Bush was criticizing his own government which was extremely spend happy? He isn't criticizing a 'general' government but a specific government...

 

[shagdrum]

So, Bush was criticizing his own government which was extremely spend happy? He isn't criticizing a 'general' government but a specific government...

Where did you get that?

Are you trying to refocus the debate? again?

You really have no interest in an honest debate on the merits of the arguments do you.

 

[Kstills]

Both quotes she used were brief, and to the point - she turns to these two people to find statements that are concise, and state one thing - 'your make your own choices'.

It is obvious she is going for the brevity connection - that is why they are favorites, otherwise, you would have to also believe that Mother Teresa is a political philosopher. She wasn't apolitical, but to call her a political philosopher...

Anita is going with the brevity connection...

So, do you follow Beck's logic - do you think it is sound Kstills? If you say you like how someone states something, in this case 'you fight your war, I'll fight mine', you embrace everything that person has done.

So, she would also have to be embracing all of Mother Teresa's work as well - aren't Mao and Mother Teresa sort on the opposite ends of the scale regarding helping humanity? How could she embrace both? She couldn't, because quoting them as favorites doesn't involve also accepting all parts of the person who is being quoted.

She says...

The two people I turn to most.........


to basically deliver a simple point.

You are simply mistaken on how you're interpreting her remarks. I would suggest that it's because you feel a need to defend her, however I don't know you well enough to state that as a fact.

The key phrase is 'my two favorite philosophers'.

And as a lefty, she's linking MT with Mao to appear to be broadminded.

In her book, 'The Forgotten Man' Amity Schlaes(sp?) relates a story from the late 1920's, and how the west was fascinated by Stalin, Hitler and Mussonlini. The women in the story was talking to a leftist and her comment was (paraphrasing) "You have no idea what these people are really like, and if you did you would be appalled".

In our society, it's safe to make Mao your favorite philosopher. It's not so safe to make Washington your favorite philosopher in Mao's scociety.

Which is why we on the right remain vigilant about idiots who would drag us in that direction.

 

[foxpaws]

She says...

The two people I turn to most.........

to basically deliver a simple point.

You are simply mistaken on how you're interpreting her remarks. I would suggest that it's because you feel a need to defend her, however I don't know you well enough to state that as a fact.

Well, she could be a total idiot - I don't know Anita Dunn...

However, just about the only thing in common that Mao and Mother Teresa have is their brevity.

It would be difficult to name both of them as 'your favorite philosophers' based on their philosophy - they are pretty much exact opposites. But it is easy to place them both in the 'my favorite 'to the point' philosopher' bucket.

The key phrase is 'my two favorite philosophers'.

And as a lefty, she's linking MT with Mao to appear to be broadminded.

I think that is as much speculation as anything... Once again - she could be a Catholic and really admire Mother Teresa, or she could be a progressive and like Mother Teresa for her 'social justice' views. There would be a lot of reasons for Anita Dunn to use Mother Teresa, other than to just include her to be politically correct.

I think the only link between the two people is their style... therefore the reason that they are both favorites of Dunn.

Once again she could be rather strange in her philosophical beliefs - but to like them both for their political philosophies is pretty much impossible.

In her book, 'The Forgotten Man' Amity Schlaes(sp?) relates a story from the late 1920's, and how the west was fascinated by Stalin, Hitler and Mussonlini. The women in the story was talking to a leftist and her comment was (paraphrasing) "You have no idea what these people are really like, and if you did you would be appalled".

In our society, it's safe to make Mao your favorite philosopher. It's not so safe to make Washington your favorite philosopher in Mao's scociety.

Which is why we on the right remain vigilant about idiots who would drag us in that direction.

And it is a wonderful thing that we can make Mao a favorite philosopher without fear of being hauled off to jail.

Remain vigilant - but don't curtail.

Shag - Foss said that Bush was criticizing government in general when Bush was droning on about how government shouldn't decide how your money is spent and that government spends too much. However, if he is doing that - he must be criticizing his own tenure - because during his time in office the government was on some sort of wild spending spree. I doubt if he was criticizing government in general, because that criticism would also be reflecting on him. It is pretty obvious that he was criticizing the current administration.

Heck, for some reason the right harps on about the liberals 'tax and spend' policies. At least I know this - if you spend you should tax - it is at least somewhat fiscally responsible. The right's policy of 'cut taxes and spend' seems to be pretty fiscally stupid.

 

[shagdrum]

At least I know this - if you spend you should tax - it is at least somewhat fiscally responsible.

Are you insinuating that conservatives (and libertarians) don't think we should tax at all? To insinuate that is to set up a pretty obvious straw man.

Increasing taxes only seems fiscally responsible if you make the absurd assumption that people's behavior will not change in response of increased taxes.

If you look at the real world, people do change their behavior when taxes are increased; history confirms it and most any economic school of thought assumes it. In that case it becomes an issue of the right level of taxation to maximize revenue; the Laffer Curve.

As much as you try to apply it about me, the fact is that your views are the ones based on abstraction from reality. Your absurd assumption here rather aptly demonstrates that.

 

[shagdrum]

It would be difficult to name both of them as 'your favorite philosophers' based on their philosophy - they are pretty much exact opposites.

Are you sure of that? Do you know that Mother Teresa didn't support social justice in some fashion?

I know you like to ignore philosophy, but that is precisely what this discussion is about. Focusing only on the various ways people enact that ideology in the material world only serves to misdirect and you know it. You could very easily connect them through the idea of social justice, among other things.

 

[foxpaws]

Are you sure of that? Do you know that Mother Teresa didn't support social justice in some fashion?

I know you like to ignore philosophy, but that is precisely what this discussion is about. Focusing only on the various ways people enact that ideology in the material world only serves to misdirect and you know it. You could very easily connect them through the idea of social justice, among other things.

Ah, shag - perhaps you should read my post... I know you like to ignore...

I think that is as much speculation as anything... Once again - she could be a Catholic and really admire Mother Teresa, or she could be a progressive and like Mother Teresa for her 'social justice' views. There would be a lot of reasons for Anita Dunn to use Mother Teresa, other than to just include her to be politically correct.

Of course Mother Teresa supports social justice - the Catholic Church in general does.

However don't confuse it with how it is viewed a'la Beck -

Mao's version of social justice is quite a bit different than the Catholic Church's take on the subject. It isn't where the two connect. The two connect in the brevity of their statements.

 

[Kstills]

Ah, shag - perhaps you should read my post... I know you like to ignore...



Of course Mother Teresa supports social justice - the Catholic Church in general does.

However don't confuse it with how it is viewed a'la Beck -

Mao's version of social justice is quite a bit different than the Catholic Church's take on the subject. It isn't where the two connect. The two connect in the brevity of their statements.

Define 'social justice' please.

 

[foxpaws]

Are you insinuating that conservatives (and libertarians) don't think we should tax at all? To insinuate that is to set up a pretty obvious straw man.

Increasing taxes only seems fiscally responsible if you make the absurd assumption that people's behavior will not change in response of increased taxes.

If you look at the real world, people do change their behavior when taxes are increased; history confirms it and most any economic school of thought assumes it. In that case it becomes an issue of the right level of taxation to maximize revenue; the Laffer Curve.

As much as you try to apply it about me, the fact is that your views are the ones based on abstraction from reality. Your absurd assumption here rather aptly demonstrates that.

Nope - the right taxes, however, they seem to not understand a basic balance sheet - if you spend, you need to get the money from somewhere. They just like spending... and getting the bonus points for cutting taxes.

If people balk against the taxes by not working as hard, or not investing as much, the revenue rolls could go down. Yes you need to find that 'balance' as well.

However, cutting taxes and increasing spending seems to be just downright foolish. At least keep taxes steady if you are going to increase spending... Or on the other hand - keep spending the same if you decrease taxes.

The right's combination of spend lots, decrease taxes, is a bad business model. Hold off spending to see if your plan to decrease taxes results in more opportunity, and therefore a bigger gdp, and therefore, at the end of the day more money in the revenue coffers. But, don't spend even more first, thinking that your little plan of cutting taxes will eventually equal more revenue. There are too many variable... the result is too 'iffy'.

 

[foxpaws]

Define 'social justice' please.

So, do you want the Mao Tse-Tung version, or the Mother Teresa (Catholic Church) take on the whole subject...

And haven't we 'been there, done that' about this in the recent past...

So, shag - do you think Mao Tse-Tung and Mother Teresa have a whole lot in common regarding their political philosophy... Do you think that besides that no doubt much perused King James next to Mother Teresa a Little Red Book resided as well?

 

[Kstills]

So, do you want the Mao Tse-Tung version, or the Mother Teresa (Catholic Church) take on the whole subject...

I would prefer your version.

And you are deluding yoursefl if you think Mao 'believed' in social justice. A casual glance at his record is all it would take to understand that Mao was about Mao.

And haven't we 'been there, done that' about this in the recent past...

No idea. Point me to the post.

 

[foxpaws]

I would prefer your version.

And you are deluding yoursefl if you think Mao 'believed' in social justice. A casual glance at his record is all it would take to understand that Mao was about Mao.

No idea. Point me to the post.

Ah, it is a funny one - dealing with Beck's statements... link here

"I beg you, look for the words “social justice” or “economic justice” on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words. Now, am I advising people to leave their church? Yes! If I’m going to Jeremiah’s Wright’s church? Yes! Leave your church. Social justice and economic justice. They are code words. If you have a priest that is pushing social justice, go find another parish. Go alert your bishop and tell them, “Excuse me are you down with this whole social justice thing?” I don’t care what the church is. If it’s my church, I’m alerting the church authorities: “Excuse me, what’s this social justice thing?” And if they say, “Yeah, we’re all in that social justice thing,” I’m in the wrong place."​

While later defining what the 'code' was...

If you see the words -- what is -- social justice, and what was the other one? Economic justice. You see these -- these are code words. These are the Marxist code words for the new global order.​

Beck actually didn't seem to research how large churches like The Catholic Church, The Mormon Church (specifically his church), most Protestant Churches, the Jewish faith, etc. use the words "social justice'... and have for over a century. (Sort of a continuing problem - his 'fact finding' seems to go lacking at times... )

So the whole idea that Mao believed in Social Justice is a bit of an 'in' joke here - some people equate 'social justice' with communist/marxist ideals... Especially when you reference them in conjunction with your church, or any church, or even Mother Teresa - that social justice loving commie that she was... /s/s/s/s/s/s

And I agree Mao was all about Mao... with a good bit of heavy handed top-down authoritarian type communism thrown in. Actually the perfect system if you want it all to be all about you.

 

[Kstills]

Ah, it is a funny one - dealing with Beck's statements... link here

"I beg you, look for the words “social justice” or “economic justice” on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words. Now, am I advising people to leave their church? Yes! If I’m going to Jeremiah’s Wright’s church? Yes! Leave your church. Social justice and economic justice. They are code words. If you have a priest that is pushing social justice, go find another parish. Go alert your bishop and tell them, “Excuse me are you down with this whole social justice thing?” I don’t care what the church is. If it’s my church, I’m alerting the church authorities: “Excuse me, what’s this social justice thing?” And if they say, “Yeah, we’re all in that social justice thing,” I’m in the wrong place."​

While later defining what the 'code' was...

If you see the words -- what is -- social justice, and what was the other one? Economic justice. You see these -- these are code words. These are the Marxist code words for the new global order.​

Beck actually didn't seem to research how large churches like The Catholic Church, The Mormon Church (specifically his church), most Protestant Churches, the Jewish faith, etc. use the words "social justice'... and have for over a century. (Sort of a continuing problem - his 'fact finding' seems to go lacking at times... )

So the whole idea that Mao believed in Social Justice is a bit of an 'in' joke here - some people equate 'social justice' with communist/marxist ideals... Especially when you reference them in conjunction with your church, or any church, or even Mother Teresa - that social justice loving commie that she was... /s/s/s/s/s/s

And I agree Mao was all about Mao... with a good bit of heavy handed top-down authoritarian type communism thrown in. Actually the perfect system if you want it all to be all about you.

I suppose I could wade through that entire thread (poo flinging aside), but it would be much easier for you to just define the term for me here.

 

[foxpaws]

I suppose I could wade through that entire thread (poo flinging aside), but it would be much easier for you to just define the term for me here.

Ah, Kstills - the poo flinging was the very best part...

 

[Kstills]

Ah, Kstills - the poo flinging was the very best part...

Hehe, when you are in the middle of it, yes.

Wading through it after the fact is tiresome.

So, are you going to answer my request for a definition?

Your own, if you don't mind.

 

[shagdrum]

Mao's version of social justice is quite a bit different than the Catholic Church's take on the subject. It isn't where the two connect. The two connect in the brevity of their statements.

Even if Mao and Mother Teresa had different views concerning social justice, what matters is what Mrs. Dunn views as social justice and weather or not she recognizes that distinction. It is not as often or as easily recognized as you think.

In fact that line is exceedingly blurry. Many in the Catholic Church miss and distinction concerning social justice. In fact, Liberation Theology (which blatantly supports social justice in the proper, philosophical sense of the term) has bled into areas of many other forms of Christianity and Catholicism.

The blurring of the line between religion and politics concerning social justice can be traced back as far as William Godwin in the 1790's when he wrote what is generally considered the first treatise on social justice:

The doctrine of the injustice of accumulated property has been the foundation of all religious morality. Its most energetic teachers have been irresistibly led to assert the precise truth in this respect. They have taught the rich, that they hold the wealth only as a trust, that they are strictly accountable for every atom of their expenditure, that they are merely administrators, and by no means proprietors in chief. But, while religion thus inculcated on mankind the pure principles of justice, the majority of its professors have been but too apt to treat the practice of justice, not as a debt, which it ought to be considered, but as an affair of spontaneous generosity and bounty.

The effect which is produced by this accommodating doctrine, is, to place the supply of our wants in the disposal of a few enabling them to make a show of generosity with what is not truly their own, and to purchase the submission of the poor by the payment of debt. Theirs is a system of clemency and charity, instead of a system of justice. It fills the rich with unreasonable pride, by the spurious denominations with which it decorates their acts; and the poor with servility, by leading them to regard the slender comforts they obtain, not as their incontrovertible due, but as the good pleasure and grace of their opulent neighbors.​

 

[shagdrum]

Kstills, I hope you would realize that foxpaws intentionally and habitually misrepresents things to make them favorable to her point of view. Read that thread and make sense of it on your own. Foxpaws is a liar and not to be trusted.

 

[shagdrum]

some people equate 'social justice' with communist/marxist ideals.

Are you insinuating that social justice is not the basis for Marxism and any other form of socialism (communism, fascism, National Socialism, etc.)?

I know you are not that ignorant so the only other possibility is that you are delusional or are intentionally misleading...

 

[foxpaws]

So, social justice a'la foxpaws...

If you not only give food to the poor, but you work at creating an environment that allows the poor to rise out of their situation – that is social justice. In many parts of the world, it behooves the government to keep much of the population in poverty, giving those people a means to escape that cycle is how I define social justice. If you just give them food, they will remain in poverty. If you give them the means to rise out of poverty: education, infrastructure, tools, and yes, even housing and technology, they have the opportunity to break the cycle of poverty.

Now, shag will state that I am redefining social justice. However, in this case, this is how most churches view social justice (and me). In some cases (i.e. the Catholic Church) it also involves coming in and using political channels as well. Defeating a dictator, removing politicians who want to continue the cycle of poverty, that may (but doesn’t have to be) a part of the equation. Heck, even George W viewed it similarly...

So we're helping to increase opportunity by relieving debt and opening trade, encouraging reform, and delivering aid that empowers the poor and the marginalized. And the record of this administration in promoting social justice is a strong record and an important record. Social justice begins with building government institutions that are fair and effective and free of corruption.​

You hope that by creating an environment that rises people out of poverty, that the aspect of self awareness also blossoms. Perhaps they begin to understand their natural rights, and how important they are. Hopefully this in turn creates a political upheaval on its own, maybe a little like Tiananmen Square, since we are going with the whole "Mao" tie-in here... I like to believe the people will than have an opportunity to create their own destiny, without the interference of an outside government stepping in and creating a destiny in their own image...

So, yes, obviously Mao wasn’t a great believer in social justice if you go by that definition… Keeping much of the population poor, continuing the cycle of poverty, increased his chances of staying in power.

So, a little warning Kstills - the poo slinging is about to occur... perhaps protective gear is called for...

<edit>Whoops I am mistaken - reviewing the last couple of posts that occurred while I was writing this - the poo slinging has already started...

Time to get out the gear...

 

[Kstills]

Kstills, I hope you would realize that foxpaws intentionally and habitually misrepresents things to make them favorable to her point of view. Read that thread and make sense of it on your own. Foxpaws is a liar and not to be trusted.

That's called bias, and it's a condition all of us humans share.

 

[Kstills]

So, social justice a'la foxpaws...

If you not only give food to the poor, but you work at creating an environment that allows the poor to rise out of their situation – that is social justice. In many parts of the world, it behooves the government to keep much of the population in poverty, giving those people a means to escape that cycle is how I define social justice. If you just give them food, they will remain in poverty. If you give them the means to rise out of poverty: education, infrastructure, tools, and yes, even housing and technology, they have the opportunity to break the cycle of poverty.

See?

We can agree on some things.

I would add that as a consequence of providing those opportunities, society instills a sense of personal responsiblity in the individual.

Which is where the Churches definition of Social Justice will diverge from that of the Socialist.

Now, shag will state that I am redefining social justice. However, in this case, this is how most churches view social justice (and me). In some cases (i.e. the Catholic Church) it also involves coming in and using political channels as well. Defeating a dictator, removing politicians who want to continue the cycle of poverty, that may (but doesn’t have to be) a part of the equation. Heck, even George W viewed it similarly...

So we're helping to increase opportunity by relieving debt and opening trade, encouraging reform, and delivering aid that empowers the poor and the marginalized. And the record of this administration in promoting social justice is a strong record and an important record. Social justice begins with building government institutions that are fair and effective and free of corruption.​

You hope that by creating an environment that rises people out of poverty, that the aspect of self awareness also blossoms. Perhaps they begin to understand their natural rights, and how important they are. Hopefully this in turn creates a political upheaval on its own, maybe a little like Tiananmen Square, since we are going with the whole "Mao" tie-in here... I like to believe the people will than have an opportunity to create their own destiny, without the interference of an outside government stepping in and creating a destiny in their own image...

So, yes, obviously Mao wasn’t a great believer in social justice if you go by that definition… Keeping much of the population poor, continuing the cycle of poverty, increased his chances of staying in power.

So, a little warning Kstills - the poo slinging is about to occur... perhaps protective gear is called for...

<edit>Whoops I am mistaken - reviewing the last couple of posts that occurred while I was writing this - the poo slinging has already started...

Time to get out the gear...

Oh, the drama.

I will admit that you'll get many more page views this way.....