Mc Carthyism another lie by the left.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

If, and only if that religious rationale contradicts pure and simple logic. It doens't take a genius to see that Religion uses common-sense heavily in some it's more basic principles, so saying it should not coincide at all is just silly.

Amen. (Yes, the irony is intentional.) I agree 100%, am so sick of religion being used as a political tool that I can't even express my level of frustration with it. It should be IRRELEVANT. I can tell you one thing, it has tested my faith listening to these pharisee's abuse their faith. It does give me a better understanding of how screwed up religious based govts are though.

You really are either a walking contradiction or the biggest hypocrite ive seen on these boards. IRRELEVANT is right for once. It dosent matter where the person gets these beliefs but that they are either correct or you agree with them. Whats your beef with religion? By the way I dont care for organised religions of any denomiation.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

You just quoted two different people.

I know . Red usually manages to make refute himself in many of his posts. Its seems he is what he hates.

[Redleg]

It says a lot more to me about conservatives that they try to rewrite history on every scoundrel and scumbag who ever had conservative ideas. Trash like the above isn't worth refuting, because it isn't worth reading in the first place.

Again with false accusations - where is history being re-written about McCarthy. It seems we have one individual who has alledged that McCarthy was a Christian Extremist - where its not mentioned in any history book that I have ever read about the time period.

And then the three links posted by myself on McCarthy - don't come from conservative baised websites at all - one even is Wikipedia - which has been used by almost all of us at one time or another as a realible source of information. However it seems anything that counters your narrow world view is trash or is a re-write of history. Now that is a funny comment coming from someone who claims to be a moderate or a progressive as you did here:

Nope, I'm more of an independent or more accurately, a progressive. Some of my views are moderate, some conservative, some liberal.

Independent thought would normally entail an open mind able to review all information - and coming to a informed conclusion about the subject. However it seems your mind is more closed then you want to admit.

However instead of answering the question posed by another individual - you chose instead to return to the basic - closed minded narrow viewpoints that show more of an ideological leaning - verus one of independent political thought, without address the supposed re-writes of history.

Yep narrow and closed minded - and some would like to accuse only conservatives of this afflication.

[Red Harvest]

I know . Red usually manages to make refute himself in many of his posts. Its seems he is what he hates.

Funny, I haven't seen that at all. I have seen you as being incredibly self contradictory and full of hate. (Why is it the conservatives that are seem to want to bring hate into every discussion? Hmmmm.) Your irrational abhorrence of Clinton actually leads you to side with those who say the U.S. brought on terrorist acts for siding against the Soviets or against genocide. That had to have been the most inane piece of BS I've seen in quite awhile and reminded me very much of the fake native american professor who referred to 9/11 victims as "little Eichmans."

Of course, your world is simple black and white, mine is not. So I guess you find that you take any interpretation of gray as a refutation.

And what is with all these heavily biased sensationalistic articles that you like to quote? It's classic yellow journalism that you continually post as if it was scientific fact. The BS meter pegs on half that stuff and you eat it up. Intellectual discussion is fine, but at least start with something credible.

[Red Harvest]

Independent thought would normally entail an open mind able to review all information - and coming to a informed conclusion about the subject. However it seems your mind is more closed then you want to admit.

Wrong on both counts. When something pegs the BS meter in the first two lines, it is discarded, just as I do with known faulty data. If I already have a valid assignable cause, then there isn't much reason to do further investigation. Polluting one's mind with yellow journalism is hardly enlightening although it seems to be a past time around here.

Yep narrow and closed minded - and some would like to accuse only conservatives of this afflication.

Seems to fit in your case.

[Redleg]

Wrong on both counts.

So your not an independent thinker - thanks for confirming that.

When something pegs the BS meter in the first two lines, it is discarded, just as I do with known faulty data. If I already have a valid assignable cause, then there isn't much reason to do further investigation. Polluting one's mind with yellow journalism is hardly enlightening although it seems to be a past time around here.

Again show where the history has been re-written. So now Wikepedia is yellow journalism. Interesting

Seems to fit in your case.

Actually it seems to be more of a fit for you, since I am not the one calling Wikipedia Yellow Journalism. But if you admit that your being narrow and closed minded about history that doesn't agree with your politicial views - I will admit that I am narrow and closed minded about several aspects of liberialism.

Really you have to do much better with your attempts at being witty - your really below par with the likes of Tribesman adn Adrian - its really rather laughable.

[PanzerJaeger]

It says a lot more to me about conservatives that they try to rewrite history on every scoundrel and scumbag who ever had conservative ideas. Trash like the above isn't worth refuting, because it isn't worth reading in the first place.

Preconcieved notions are hard to change.

If you didnt read the article, and are unable to refute any of the facts presented in the article, why are you posting in this thread attacking conservatives?

What possible contribution could you make having not even read the article?

Your bomb throwing would have a lot more impact if you actually contested, or even discussed, the actual article.

[Red Harvest]

So your not an independent thinker - thanks for confirming that.



Again show where the history has been re-written. So now Wikepedia is yellow journalism. Interesting



Actually it seems to be more of a fit for you, since I am not the one calling Wikipedia Yellow Journalism. But if you admit that your being narrow and closed minded about history that doesn't agree with your politicial views - I will admit that I am narrow and closed minded about several aspects of liberialism.

Really you have to do much better with your attempts at being witty - your really below par with the likes of Tribesman adn Adrian - its really rather laughable.

You are pretty good at distortion. I'm still referring to the origina post. I had already read through some of the Wiki stuff. Wiki in general seems to depend a lot on who wrote it, it has some accurate info, and some that is not. Didn't change my opinion of McCarthy or McCarthyism.

Most of what you have said is typical conservative trash talk, take your insults and distortions to some other target.

I should know better than to post in threads with yellow journalism headings.

[Red Harvest]

Despite my own views on McCarthy, I gotta go with Redleg as far as defending Wikipedia goes. Any article where the nuetrality is disputed, or where the facts might be skewed, there is usually a discussion page and a warning at the top of the article.

You fell for his misrepresentation of what I said, unfortunately.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Funny, I haven't seen that at all. I have seen you as being incredibly self contradictory and full of hate. (Why is it the conservatives that are seem to want to bring hate into every discussion? Hmmmm.) Your irrational abhorrence of Clinton actually leads you to side with those who say the U.S. brought on terrorist acts fording a siding against the Soviets or against genocide. That had to have been the most inane piece of BS I've seen in quite awhile and reminded me very much of the fake native american professor who referred to 9/11 victims as "little Eichmans."

Full of hate for who? The only group I have ever stated I hate are terrorists. You talk about my irrational abhorrence of Clinton, what of your towards GWB. Again you are a hypocrite of the first magnitude. I admit Im a staunch conservative at leastI admit it. I also never said our siding against the Soviets brought on terrorist acts. I said that I couldnt understand why we fight them in Afghanistan yet support them in Kosovo. You have never addressed the topic of this thread other than to say hogwash conservatives suck. But then you are a moderate.. You are indeed a Master Debator.

[Red Harvest]

I'm not taking sides in this thread. I stand by my views of McCarthy.

I'm just defending the honour of Wikipedia.

And, again, I wasn't referring to wiki. So he's tricked you twice by his misrepresentation of what I said. I was referring to the original text and title. The title alone fits the definition of yellow journalism for its sensational nature.

[KukriKhan]

Just stepping in to remind all: personal attacks are not allowed by forum rules. Critiqueing someone's style of argument = OK. But remember that it's only a half-step away from a personal attack. Tread gently. Thank you.

[Redleg]

You are pretty good at distortion. I'm still referring to the origina post. I had already read through some of the Wiki stuff. Wiki in general seems to depend a lot on who wrote it, it has some accurate info, and some that is not. Didn't change my opinion of McCarthy or McCarthyism.

Why yes I am very good at distortion of people's idiocy - especially when you provide such a tempting target with your ideological viewpoints that contradict themselves so often. But again lets review the comments a little more to see where exactly the distortion is.

You said wrong on both accounts - so you left it open for my interpation. In refusing to answer the question posed - you also set yourself up for the distortion of what you stated - especially given that you responded to the question in the post, without refering to what you wanted to answer. Its called learn to communicate.

Most of what you have said is typical conservative trash talk, take your insults and distortions to some other target.

However why don't you do so first - since you actually started it in this thread review your comments . Calling something he doesn't agree with Yellow Journalism - does not make it so. do you even know who Phil Brennan is? Did the initial article distort the truth to the point of being completely false or made up?

I should know better than to post in threads with yellow journalism headings.

Labeling again I see. What constitutes Yellow Journalism? (And yes I know the answer - just checking to see if you know what it is.)

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Its funny the premise of this thread was that the left used the term Mc Carthyism to smear and label conservatives. Whether he was good or bad wasnt my point. He wasnt as bad as some say nor as good as others think.I think they have more than proven my point here. To even think of defending him sends them into a rage and all reason flies out the window. Its another of their sacred cows. Lets not let the facts get in the way. In fact lets just ignore them completely. We can just tell the conservatives how stupid and closed minded they are.

Whether he was good or bad wasnt my point. He wasnt as bad as some say nor as good as others think.

[Red Harvest]

Full of hate for who? The only group I have ever stated I hate are terrorists. You talk about my irrational abhorrence of Clinton, what of your towards GWB. Again you are a hypocrite of the first magnitude. I admit Im a staunch conservative at leastI admit it. I also never said our siding against the Soviets brought on terrorist acts. I said that I couldnt understand why we fight them in Afghanistan yet support them in Kosovo. You have never addressed the topic of this thread other than to say hogwash conservatives suck. But then you are a moderate.. You are indeed a Master Debator.

I've been very clear about what I dislike about Dubya and I refer to the acts specifically. That isn't hate. I was actually fairly neutral on him when he first took office, since I had a low opinion of Gore. Dubya has had his shot and I'm not impressed by the results. Some think he's done great, but he's failed on most measures I have. If his policies were actually successful at fulfilling their objectives I wouldn't be so down on him.

You said in the other thread that Clinton had supported AQ etc. by supporting Kosovo. It makes no more sense than the Afghan arguments where again our support was being used against the Soviet occupation. There is no conflict in the two objectives, since both were intended to stop an aggressor. Now you are throwing in the recent Afghan invasion, which is not relevant. We weren't supporting terror in Kosovo, we were stopping genocide. I find that far easier to defend than the Iraq War which while I feel was justified for other reasons, was certainly not justified for the reasons given by the commander in chief.

As for being a "Master Debator." I'm not here to win points for a debate squad. If I wanted to do that I could go play bounce the ball with Pindar in that other thread that is going on forever. I leave a thread when I feel it is stale (and this one was headed there in hurry.) I don't ever expect to get in the last word with our resident right wing, nor do I feel I have some obligation to respond to every single question or comment posed. I do however have a huge problem with the absolute spew coming from the conservative side of the political world at the moment, and I'll call it as I see it. Not that yellow journalism doesn't come from the other side, I dismiss it just as readily. However, the net is just swimming with silly conservative propaganda anymore and usually I turn up more of that than the other extreme when I'm doing searches. It is annoying trying to find something neutral wading through that flotsam.

[Red Harvest]

Labeling again I see. What constitutes Yellow Journalism? (And yes I know the answer - just checking to see if you know what it is.)

I've been operating under the following from wiki: "The term, as it commonly applies, refers to news organizations for whom sensationalism, profiteering, and in some cases propaganda and jingoism, take dominance over factual reporting."

Look at the title of the thread, fits it to a tee.

Now if I follow the orders being given to me by you, I have to debate your distortions on this endlessly and answer every assertion you make. You just want to fight? Great, go fight with yourself, I'm not interested. I'll sacrifice your debating points. Good-bye.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

You said in the other thread that Clinton had supported AQ etc. by supporting Kosovo. It makes no more sense than the Afghan arguments where again our support was being used against the Soviet occupation.

Theres a big difference between helping someone oppose sovit accupation and stepping into a civil war where both sides ar equally guilty and taking the side of those who proven to be your enemy. It may not have occured to you I take it that Clinton came after we started helping in Afganistan . The KLA and AQ are like 2 peas in a pod.

There is no conflict in the two objectives, since both were intended to stop an aggressor.

Thats a matter of opinion. I say the Albanians were the aggressors. I gave you plenty of proof in the other thread. Again both sides were at fault. Its like us suddenly saying Israel is slaughtering Palestinians and bombing Israel.

We weren't supporting terror in Kosovo, we were stopping genocide

Bull . Its going on as we speak but its the Albanians who are doing it and always have been. Yes the Serbs were also guilty. I didnt say we shouldnt stop it . I said we shouldnt have taken sides.

[Red Harvest]

Theres a big difference between helping someone oppose sovit accupation and stepping into a civil war where both sides ar equally guilty and taking the side of those who proven to be your enemy. It may not have occured to you I take it that Clinton came after we started helping in Afganistan.

So? Since Osama was in Afghanistan but a Republican was funding him that makes it different? The fight was still right in both cases. Doesn't mean that everyone behind it was a good person...in EITHER case.

Thats a matter of opinion. I say the Albanians were the aggressors. I gave you plenty of proof in the other thread. Again both sides were at fault. Its like us suddenly saying Israel is slaughtering Palestinians and bombing Israel.


Bull . Its going on as we speak but its the Albanians who are doing it and always have been. Yes the Serbs were also guilty. I didnt say we shouldnt stop it . I said we shouldnt have taken sides.

You can say what you want, but I've already read up on this. I do find it amusing now watching the spin doctors at work on it. The Serbian repression created an insurrection, and it helped drive the other states out as well. Had the Serbs done to you what they were doing to the Kosovars you would have been doing the same as the KLA.

The arguments you are using for Kosovo aren't much better than saying the Jews fighting in the Warsaw ghetto deserved extermination and were terrorists. The fight came from Serb nationalism trying to form a greater Serbia.

[Redleg]

I've been operating under the following from wiki: "The term, as it commonly applies, refers to news organizations for whom sensationalism, profiteering, and in some cases propaganda and jingoism, take dominance over factual reporting."

Now that getting to the gist of the point now is it not?

Look at the title of the thread, fits it to a tee.

The title is only a title of a thread made by an individual who is patron of this forum and from all accounts (by him) is not in the news publishing business - Now lets see if the article meets the requirments of Yellow Journalism - not the title of the thread in which the article appears. However that will require some reading on your part.

You really are hoist on your own petard over this.

Not at all especially since Websters define's Petard as

1 : a case containing an explosive to break down a door or gate or breach a wall
2 : a firework that explodes with a loud repor

Since I can't hoist your ideological viewpoint past your own narrow mind - the use of explosives has not worked.

However you are doing a good job of breaking wind - or in this case typing foul and obnoxious comments

Since
Now if I follow the orders being given to me by clowns like you, I have to debate your crap on this endlessly and answer every assertion you make. You just want to fight? Great, go fight with yourself, I'm not interested. I'll sacrifice your juvenile debating points. Good-bye.

No orders have been given - especially by clowns. However it seems that your ability to not name call other patrons who disagree with your opinion is soley lacking. Maybe a few lessons in manners from your parents might be in order.

[Red Harvest]

Maybe a few lessons in manners from your parents might be in order.

LOL, you are really making a leap in the wrong direction there...maybe I'll ask my kids for advice instead.

[Redleg]

LOL, you are really making a leap in the wrong direction there...maybe I'll ask my kids for advice instead.

Not at all - I was refering that you need to seek the council of your parents on manners since you obviousily missed or didn't appreciate their lessons the first time.

But your kids might just be able to accomplish the same thing -

Since my son has taught me compassion far more then my parents lessons ever sunk in.

[Red Harvest]

Not at all - I was refering that you need to seek the council of your parents on manners since you obviousily missed or didn't appreciate their lessons the first time.

You know, I was trying to close this out in a more civil manner, but after watching you in action, I'll just move you to ignore. Haven't tried out that feature before, so we'll see if it works.

[Redleg]

You know, I was trying to close this out in a more civil manner, but after watching you in action, I'll just move you to ignore. Haven't tried out that feature before, so we'll see if it works.

Well it seems you like to dish out insults but can't take them in return. How very enlightened your thinking process is.

Ignore works well - however it does not stop one from having their posts being ridiculed when they deserve it.

Have fun with ignoring people who view things differently - your sure to go far in enlightening your viewpoint.

LOL

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Hey if he puts you on ignore I will just quote your posts.

[Redleg]

Hey if he puts you on ignore I will just quote your posts.

Nah - it will be more fun just to blindly respond and watch others quote them - it can make for a very fun out of context debate.

[Franconicus]

McCarthy was a great, great man. Too bad he wasn't president. America would have won the cold war then.

Yes, and he would have abolished the Bill of Rights and the rest of this democracy stuff!

[Ironside]

Well, let me see if I get it straight, Mc Carthy made US aware of the Soviet infiltration threat, but also used the communist label to eliminate political enemies. Correct? That was then spread to a public witch-hunt on a lot of public people that didn't exactly was a threat (they were not Soviet spies or heavy Soviet sympathizers). Correct?

AFAIK, the second part is what Mc Carthyism symbolizes.

So the symbol and the actual figure isn't a 100% match. So what? That isn't exactly unusual, when it comes to symbols.

And the thread has ended up here?

[bmolsson]

I think McCarthy was a closet communist. He acted so much as the homophobians these days.....

[sharrukin]

Well, let me see if I get it straight, Mc Carthy made US aware of the Soviet infiltration threat, but also used the communist label to eliminate political enemies. Correct? That was then spread to a public witch-hunt on a lot of public people that didn't exactly was a threat (they were not Soviet spies or heavy Soviet sympathizers). Correct?

AFAIK, the second part is what Mc Carthyism symbolizes.

So the symbol and the actual figure isn't a 100% match. So what? That isn't exactly unusual, when it comes to symbols.

And the thread has ended up here?

What witch-hunt are you talking about?
AFAIK the only political opponent Mccarthy associated with Communism was a guy endorsed by the Communist party. That was in 1946.

The problem is that there is almost a total disconnect between what happened and the myth.

[Ironside]

What witch-hunt are you talking about?
AFAIK the only political opponent Mccarthy associated with Communism was a guy endorsed by the Communist party. That was in 1946.

McCarthy found a cause. In February 1950, in Wheeling, West Virginia, he made the first of a series of claims that he had the names of "known communists" who were in the employ of the State Department. It was the beginning of a personal witch hunt for communists in the government that lasted for more than five years. McCarthy rarely provided any solid evidence to back up his claims, but in the political climate of the time his accusations and subsequent investigations nonetheless ended many a career and damaged a good number of lives.

After winning re-election in 1952, McCarthy became chairman of the Permanent Investigations Subcommittee, a position he used to launch many of his investigations of government officials and agencies. He did not shy away from questioning the integrity of people such as George C. Marshall, or even President Eisenhower. The latter disliked McCarthy intensely but refused to "get in the gutter with him" and never denounced the senator publicly. However, by 1953 a seemingly out-of-control McCarthy was making many enemies. His investigation of the activities of an Army dentist, Maj. Irving Peress, eventually led to his downfall. In 1954, the Army launched its counterattack, charging that McCarthy was seeking preferential treatment for a consultant, David Schine, who in 1953 had been drafted into the Army. Eventually McCarthy's own subcommittee decided to hold hearings on the matter, the Army-McCarthy hearings. The televised hearings fully exposed McCarthy as irresponsible and dishonest. In December 1954, the Senate voted to censure him. McCarthy never repented, but he quickly descended into irrelevance and alcoholism. He died of a liver ailment in Bethesda, Maryland, on May 2, 1957, at age 47.

From one of Redleg's sources.

McCarthy is often incorrectly described as part of the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), which is well known for the investigation of Alger Hiss which helped bring Richard Nixon into prominence. HUAC was established in May of 1938 as the "Dies Committee" before McCarthy was elected to the Federal office, and, being a House committee, had no connection with McCarthy who served in the Senate. In 1953, playwright Arthur Miller wrote The Crucible, an allegory for McCarthyism. This was probably the primary cause for Miller being brought before the House Committee on Un-American Activities in 1956.

On the witch-hunt. Check out the HUAC...
Another one of Redlegs sources. Both is on the first page.

The problem is that there is almost a total disconnect between what happened and the myth.

Not exactly uncommon. I suspect that it's because McCarthy made the red scare public (it seems so for me atleast), that caused the symbolisation.