In a 1940 movie “Ghost Breakers”, the following dialogue, :
Scientist, “It’s worse than horrible, because a zombie has no will of his own. You see them some times, walking around blindly with dead eyes, following orders, not knowing what they do, not caring.”

Bob Hope: “You mean, like Democrats?”

Bob Hope, a man way ahead of his time.

Two of her favorite philosophers that she draws on most to deliver points, does not say the "Two of my favorite philosophers that I admire the most".
It says her two favorite philosophers that she draws on the most to deliver points. You know, you use examples to prove points. In this case, she needed two opposites. It's all about choice....

Besides, if Glen Beck didn't see a problem with the end of her speech placing doubt on his meaning, he would have used it all, instead of cropping it.

Suzy: What the hell are you smoking to come up with that reasoning?

"Not often coupled" means polar oposites?

"That I turn to most..." means does not mean most admired?

Truely twisted spin. Good luck selling that swill.

Mao Zedong and Mother Theresa -- not often coupled with each other, but the two people I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point which is:

Not often coupled together..meaning opposites

two people I turn to most to deliver a simple point which is...

Point of reference to show opposites.

It's all about choice. One used her brilliance and compassionate mind for good, one used his brilliant mind for evil. That is the choice that we all have.

It's a ying/yang kind of thing.

This comment was removed by the user.

What's to distort about the Commie symp admirer lady's answer. No matter what the subject was Her words were "my Favorite' none of the as "Mao said"

Here's the full text

..."The third lesson and tip actually comes from two of my favorite political philosophers: Mao Zedong and Mother Theresa -- 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. But here's the deal: These are your choices, they are no one else's. In 1947, when Mao Zedong was being challenged within his own party on his plan to basically take China over. Chiang Kai-shek and the Nationalist Chinese held the cities, they had the army, they had the air force, they had everything on their side. And people said, "How can you win? How can you do this? How can you do this, against all of the odds against you?" And Mao Zedong said, you know, "You fight your war, and I'll fight mine." And think about that for a second. You don't have to accept the definition of how to do things and you don't have to follow other peoples choices and paths. Ok? It is about your choices and your path. You fight your own war, you lay out your own path, you figure out what's right for you. You don't let external definition define how good you are internally, you fight your war, you let them fight theirs. Everybody has their own path."...

Suzy, what part of this sad despicable excuse for a government employee looking to Mao for inspiration do you not get? She admires Maoist teachings. The teachings of a child molester and mass murderer.

Are there any lengths you won't go to in defense of this administration?

"But if you go carrying pictures of chairman mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow"

Hmm, I guess john was wrong, some can make it, although not carrying a picture of Mao, Anita Dunn certainty admires Chairman Mao's philosophy.

Suzy...I don't think it changed the meaning of anything. She looks to both Mao AND Mother Teresa for inspiration. I can sorta see Mother Teresa, but looking to Mao for inspiration makes me wonder what she's getting inspired about. Not the sort of thing that makes ME comfortable knowing that she works for the president. It sorta makes me wonder just how wierd some of the other White House staffers are. "Judge me by the people around me." Okey dokey. I'll do just that.

Kenneth, Mao was used as a reference of comparison. That was the part that was cropped, which changed the meaning of her speach greatly.

Windy, the problem remains that the same bunch of liberals still defend this administration. They remain blissfully blind to the despicable bunch of scumbags this president has surrounded himself with! And he told us to judge him by the people around him!
God help us all next year!

OHMS! Join the resistance!

Ken...I do believe that the comment by Dunn was the first time I ever heard Mao-Tse-tung and philosopher used in the same sentence! Mao may have been many things, but.....philosopher?

Let's see what he WAS. He was a revolutionary, a mass murderer of world class proportions, a pedophile, a communist, and uhhhh, what else? Oh, yeah, a person to whom a senior presidential advisor looks for inspiration. Makes me proud, how 'bout you?

Pat, what part of Mao intentionally murdered millions, THAT'S MILLIONS, of his own people do you not get?
I don't care how it was cropped she said it! I couldn't give a flagon of ratspit what context she said it, the simple fact of the matter that our president has chosen this despicable dimwhit to work for him! She admires Mao Tse Tung! That's enough for me!
The fact that it's not enough for you is...well...it's very sad!

In a court of law, much of what is being said would be considered slander.

In a court of law also when a person is asked a question, it can be contempt of court not to answer. None of this "Bill the REAL question IS"

What's to crop about the Commie symp admirer lady's answer. No matter what the subject was Her words were "my Favorite' none of the as "Mao said"

In the LAST ten or so years, it has taken an out of control federal government spending our money and lots of it to FINALLY get our (some of us)attention. while it should have happened over these last fifty or so years, it just didn’t because it was a slow and steady drain of our liberty and stealthy building of government theft and accumulation of powers.

Even now today, there are still millions of Americans that don’t know or care a twit about politics but just vote the party line or even worse…don’t vote at all. The democrats almost have a lock on minority and black voters and will close that lock with legislation in the next few month.

Is a person who boasts they never have and never will vote for the candidate no matter what they stand for of the opposing party to be trusted to make a rational decision? I don't think so. They prove by their boast of party loyality first, last, and always that they are letting the members of same tribe(take your choice rather have the Dakota Sioux or the Montana Sioux rob you) of Super rich or soon to be politicians tell them who they should vote for. I love the ones who talk on here about "studying the issues, examining the man's credentials and then always voting a straight party ticket. Even if as one party firster once said "This man always support the other party is no better than a member of the opposing party but I "ALWAYS VOTE THE STRAIGHT PARTY TICKET" and I voted for him. In the past 60 years I would wager that there have been as many actual criminal convictions of Democrat and Republican politicians

George Wallace was right when he said 'Put a Republican and a Democrat politician in a barrel and roll it downhill and there will always be a SOB on top."

Kenneth,
First, I think "despicable" is a little strong but it is your blog.
Second,if you would check out MediaMatters for America there are explainations of Fox people cropping the comments of Ms. Dunn.

Pat, no they haven't! Fox News played the whole text of comments all day! I left it out because her praise for a maniac that purposefully starved millions of his own people to death kind of cancelled out the other!

Your defense of this in light of White House attacks on Fox News is despicable!

I have more respect for Al Sharpton than I do the president. At least Sharpton has the guts to face tough questions!

Windy, you are correct. Obama and his people are looking into ways to control the internet and have curtailed press access to Gitmo. So much for "transparency!"

Suzy, you are correct. Kind of like my comments concerning John Holdren. I didn't distort anything i said about him but mud was thrown at me on this very forum for just passing on Holdren's comments.

Oh, and then there's Phelim McAleer's courage! He dared question Al Gore and point out the documented inaccuracies in his speech and what did he get? "Cut the mic!"

ex, Alan Colmes, Bob Beckel and Juan Williams would disagree. And so would Al Sharpton!

OP said-

"Once again Fox News has exposed the state-run media for what it really is!"

Lol, give it another couple elections and fox WILL BE the state-run media. (again.)

"The Media" is out of control. In a court of law, much of what is being said would be considered slander. Free speech is a good thing, but not when it distorts the truth about people and events.

My great fear for this nation is that communications isn't the only thing BO and his henchmen want to control.

What's wrong with controlling things in a political campaign? Makes sense to me.
The "praise" of MaoZedong was part of a comment that also included Mother Teresa. Critics have been leaving out that part of the quote.