So I just saw Goodnight and Goodluck, and I've got to say, he's gotten a bad rap.

He was the only one bold enough to confront the very serious and very real communist threat coming from within the State Department. If there truly wasn't a threat, as revisionists would have us believe, how did China so easily slip into communist control?

No one's been able to prove his lists to be inaccurate, and his behavior was well within the confines of civilized debate. He was the first in a long, long list of good Americans who have had their character libeled and slandered by the liberal media.

[Edited on November 14, 2005 at 4:23 PM. Reason : -w]

11/14/2005 4:19:22 PM

sure thing, ms. coulter

11/14/2005 4:24:01 PM

i think the debate more is more so in not the fact that the list may have been truly inaccurate but rather the tactics he employed in pushing it. if what we've been taught is to be accepted at all... then that was the basic understanding i took away from it.

11/14/2005 4:27:36 PM

Very true-- his facts were air tight.

But his actions were well within the confines of acceptable behavior. Anyone can look bad through editing.

If a movie needs to be made about this point in American history, it should be made about the liberal media's willfull obstruction of a good American's battle against communism.

[Edited on November 14, 2005 at 4:34 PM. Reason : .]

11/14/2005 4:32:19 PM

i agree. you know....we need more witch hunts nowadays
im glad you support impeaching bush.

[Edited on November 14, 2005 at 4:33 PM. Reason : -]

11/14/2005 4:32:45 PM

Quote :

"we need more witch hunts nowadays"

Clearly someone's been exposed to public education's brainwashing.

11/14/2005 4:35:21 PM

maybe if public education had some funding we would get the thruth...oh wait...one party has always been against that

11/14/2005 4:36:22 PM

You don't need socialized school systems to teach our kids the Truth.


The Truth's already been revealed to us 2000 years ago by a man with some crazy ideas about peace and love.

11/14/2005 4:43:28 PM

haha, someone was listening to hannity last week. he said this same thing verbatim.

i still hold to my belief that McCarthy himself was a communist.

George Clooney is simply using his celebrity to push the Liberal Hollywood Agenda on the people of America.

[Edited on November 14, 2005 at 4:46 PM. Reason : .]

11/14/2005 4:43:32 PM

ad hominem

strawman

red herring

11/14/2005 4:47:19 PM

Dear Lord I actually agree with boonedocks (if he was being serious).

[Edited on November 14, 2005 at 8:31 PM. Reason : ]

11/14/2005 8:30:36 PM

^AHAHA, he wasnt.

Anyone who doesnt think McCarthy was just doing this for his own political advancement is way too partisan for their own good.

Its ok, you still make Jesse proud.


[Edited on November 14, 2005 at 8:41 PM. Reason : .]

11/14/2005 8:39:38 PM

^ Yeah, ok buddy. Defeating communism is only considered partisan if you're a leftwing loon like yourself there, pal. Does the name Alger Hiss ring a bell? Some within our State Dept. at that time worshiped the ground that Uncle Joe walked on.

[Edited on November 14, 2005 at 8:47 PM. Reason : ]

11/14/2005 8:46:00 PM

Yeah, sure am glad he went after the Army. Catching Alger Hiss was good and all, but was it worth trying to ruin that many people's careers? At the time? Well, hindsight is 20/20, it was unnecessary brutal. Murrow exposed what needed to be exposed, and Hiss was found, and McCarthy died a lonely, bitter man, all was right in the end.

Oh, what do I know? I don't agree with you, thus im just some stupid fucking Communist, right? Everyone on the left is.

[Edited on November 14, 2005 at 8:52 PM. Reason : .]

11/14/2005 8:51:06 PM

dead.

serious.

You guys are so easy to mock


But really. McCarthy had nothing to do with revealing Hiss as an operative (HUAC was responsible).

In fact, he had nothing to do with revealing anyone as an operative. For all his showmanship, and for all the lives/careers he ruined, he never actually found a communist. Nor did he ever present a shred of evidence against the people he accused.

I don't even have to get into his disgusting tactics and political agenda.

11/14/2005 9:09:40 PM

oh, but he had to do it to ensure our security! just like how reagan had to destabilize nicaragua for our security, b/c they were leftist, thus good friends w/ the soviets.

ill tell the truth, ive never taken a class that really went into this in depth, the only US Histories I took were 251/252, so i dont remember much about HUAC.

[Edited on November 14, 2005 at 9:13 PM. Reason : .]

11/14/2005 9:12:11 PM

You lefties always like to ignore a little thing called the COLD WAR. I'm with Wlpck4Life on this one.

11/14/2005 9:15:15 PM

I really like this
http://hnn.us/articles/1622.html
History New Network article on McCarthy. Having read many of McCarthy's speeches I think the idea of McCarthyism as the grandfather to political correctness is apt.

11/14/2005 9:26:26 PM

I never said that McCarthy outed Hiss, but it does lead credence to the fact that there were communist sympathizers within the government at that time. Soviet spies within the government gave our atomic secrets to the Russians (the Rosenbergs were executed for it). It was the beginning of the Cold War and lots of Americans were miffed after Yalta and the Red Curtain in Eastern Europe.

11/14/2005 9:28:23 PM

If there was convincing evidence that there were more spies in the government, why didn't he reveal the evidene to anyone? It would have saved his career.

Oh that's right-- he had none.

If he had any impact on the Cold War, it was to inadvertently make it easier for Soviet spies to work in the government. McCarthy made all forms of communist-hunting a national joke. Is there a better environment to be a spy in?

11/14/2005 9:39:38 PM

I still think he was a communist himself, he was just trying to divert attention from that possibility.

11/14/2005 9:42:32 PM

I just named some for you - Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs.

As for McCarthy and his information, I give you this:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_496.shtml

Quote :

"The high-profile cases cited by McCarthy — Lattimore, Service, and Jessup — all ended with the senator’s charges being validated. The Senate Internal Security Subcommittee later investigated Lattimore, declaring in 1952 that "Owen Lattimore was, from some time beginning in the 1930s, a conscious articulate instrument of the Soviet conspiracy." John Stewart Service, after being cleared by the State Department’s Loyalty and Security Board six times, was finally ousted from the department in December 1951 after the Civil Service Loyalty Review Board found that there was "reasonable doubt" as to his loyalty. In Jessup’s case, the uncontested record showed that he had belonged to at least five Communist fronts, had close ties to many Communists, and was an influential member of the Institute for Pacific Relations, which the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee would describe two years later as "a vehicle used by Communists to orientate [sic] American Far Eastern policy toward Communist objectives." Of the 110 names McCarthy gave to the Tydings subcommittee, 62 were at the time employed by the State Department. Though the subcommittee cleared them all, within one year a State Department Loyalty Board instigated proceedings against 49 of the 62, and by the end of 1954, 81 of those on McCarthy’s list had either resigned from their government posts or been dismissed."

Even others who are not conservative have admitted that after examining Soviet archives that some of the Senator's accusations were in deed fact.

11/14/2005 9:50:07 PM

Quote :

"So I just saw Goodnight and Goodluck"

Is it worth seeing? I have some time to kill this week, and want to know if it would worth going to see.

11/14/2005 9:56:10 PM

1. The author is "in deed" conservative.

2.

Quote :

"The Senate Internal Security Subcommittee later investigated Lattimore, declaring in 1952 that "Owen Lattimore was, from some time beginning in the 1930s, a conscious articulate instrument of the Soviet conspiracy." John Stewart Service, after being cleared by the State Department’s Loyalty and Security Board six times, was finally ousted from the department in December 1951 after the Civil Service Loyalty Review Board found that there was "reasonable doubt" as to his loyalty."

Oh crap. You mean to say that loyalty boards in the early 50's agreed with McCarthy?!



McCarthy isn't the only one guilty of witch-hunting. Note the lack of any evidence. Only a "reasonable doubt" regarding his loyalty. You know what reasonable doubt was back then? Subscribing to a socialist newsletter 20 years prior to the fact at a time when much of America embraced socialism. Weak.

Quote :

"In Jessup’s case, the uncontested record showed that he had belonged to at least five Communist fronts, had close ties to many Communists, and was an influential member of the Institute for Pacific Relations, which the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee would describe two years later as "a vehicle used by Communists to orientate [sic] American Far Eastern policy toward Communist objectives.""

Again, weak as hell. These connections could have been nothing more than being friends with a guy who at one time subscribed to a newsletter.

Quote :

"Of the 110 names McCarthy gave to the Tydings subcommittee, 62 were at the time employed by the State Department. Though the subcommittee cleared them all, within one year a State Department Loyalty Board instigated proceedings against 49 of the 62, and by the end of 1954, 81 of those on McCarthy’s list had either resigned from their government posts or been dismissed."

And this is why McCarthism is a stain on American history. These people lost their jobs without any real evidence against them. Just hearsay and speculation.


^ It was pretty good. Didn't live up to my expectations. Still good, though.

[Edited on November 14, 2005 at 10:02 PM. Reason : .]

11/14/2005 10:00:37 PM

yeah, i trust historical commentaries from supporters of the john birch society, too. might as well post something from prisonplanet or ann coulter.com. oh yeah, you forgot the "read w/ an open mind" stuff.

do you ever post anything that isnt from a blatantly conservative site? hell, not even conservative really, more like "anti-europe, anti-democrat, pro-anything the right latches onto like gun control or abortion"

as for movies, i decided to see jarhead, instead last week, but i still want to see this.



[Edited on November 14, 2005 at 10:13 PM. Reason : .]

11/14/2005 10:05:37 PM

^^Thanks man

11/14/2005 10:11:57 PM

oh, i thought these were the same guys!

another gem from the new american/john birch:

Quote :

"among those they accused of being "dedicated, conscious agents of the Communist conspiracy" were President Dwight D. Eisenhower, cia director Allen Dulles, and Chief Justice Earl Warren"

i love information and history

[Edited on November 15, 2005 at 4:28 PM. Reason : .]

11/15/2005 4:28:24 PM

Ahah, Eisenhower should have pwnt him while he had the chance.

Sissy

11/15/2005 4:29:53 PM

Have the Birchers managed to stomp the Illuminati out of America, yet?

11/15/2005 4:30:42 PM

ask Wlfpk4Life

anywho, why was Ike so scared to act on this anyway? He was a pretty respectable guy, I'm sure people would have followed him and listened. I never looked into this stuff really, but its interesting.

[Edited on November 15, 2005 at 4:33 PM. Reason : .]

11/15/2005 4:33:17 PM

Eisenhower was very popular, but no one wants to deal with a shit storm if they don't have to.

He was actually expected to publicly pwn McCarthy when he was campaigning in Wisconsin for his first campaign, but edited his speech at the last moment.

Sissy



[Edited on November 15, 2005 at 4:43 PM. Reason : .]

11/15/2005 4:41:35 PM

Best SB troll thread in awhile.

11/15/2005 4:42:19 PM

Quote :

"If there truly wasn't a threat, as revisionists would have us believe, how did China so easily slip into communist control?"

China went communist because Chiang Kai Shek and his Kuomintang government was corrupt and incompetent; there was nothing the United States State department could have done to stop it. Under the conditions in China at the time, anything, even communism, doesn't look so bad.

11/15/2005 5:18:49 PM

strawman

11/15/2005 5:19:26 PM

WE SHOULDA NUKED CHINA WHEN WE COULD HAVE-General Patton

11/15/2005 5:20:36 PM

I'm almost glad Patton didn't live to see his beloved country infiltrated with reds.

11/15/2005 5:22:16 PM

Quote :

"Subscribing to a socialist newsletter 20 years prior to the fact at a time when much of America embraced socialism. Weak."

Ok, so what part of the Cold War don't you understand? Spies within our government gave the Soviets our atomic secrets. The very goal of communism is to spread across the globe so it would be very feasible, based on the Hiss incident with hidden photo film that there were such people within our government working against the interests of this nation.

I must have missed that part of my US History class to the time period when much of America embraced socialism. Care to elaborate on such a bold claim?

Quote :

"Again, weak as hell. These connections could have been nothing more than being friends with a guy who at one time subscribed to a newsletter."

Or it could have been as serious as actually being a member of the Communist Party USA. But I can understand why you, boonedocks, would give such people a forgiving pass.

Quote :

"And this is why McCarthism is a stain on American history. These people lost their jobs without any real evidence against them. Just hearsay and speculation."

You have no idea what the nature of the evidence was against these individuals so it's foolish of you to speculate on the merits of their dismissals.

Quote :

"yeah, i trust historical commentaries from supporters of the john birch society, too. might as well post something from prisonplanet or ann coulter.com. oh yeah, you forgot the "read w/ an open mind" stuff."

Leaving out the obvious fact that fellow leftwing circle jerk pal and skeeter pryderi uses widely leftwing sources for a lot of his information, dismissing historical fact just because you don't like the messenger is an old tactic used by the intellectually weak and/or lazy.

As for the links I provide, use a search. I've used all kinds of links and not only the ones who happen to have a conservative reputation.

11/17/2005 10:39:32 PM

Quote :

"The very goal of communism is to spread across the globe so it would be very feasible, based on the Hiss incident with hidden photo film that there were such people within our government working against the interests of this nation."

No more so than capitalism. Our fear was irrational.

Quote :

"I must have missed that part of my US History class to the time period when much of America embraced socialism. Care to elaborate on such a bold claim?"

The Socialist Party of America? The American Labor Party? The Progressive Era? Did you miss an entire week of class?

Quote :

"Or it could have been as serious as actually being a member of the Communist Party USA. But I can understand why you, boonedocks, would give such people a forgiving pass."

I believe the phrase is innocent until proven guilty. Where's your (their) evidence?

Quote :

"You have no idea what the nature of the evidence was against these individuals so it's foolish of you to speculate on the merits of their dismissals."

Yes, I actually do know the nature of the evidence:

nonexistent

Quote :

"Leaving out the obvious fact that fellow leftwing circle jerk pal and skeeter pryderi uses widely leftwing sources for a lot of his information, dismissing historical fact just because you don't like the messenger is an old tactic used by the intellectually weak and/or lazy."

lol. "Historical fact."

11/17/2005 10:52:17 PM

I think he was talking about the 30s, before communism had its current rep. people in capitalist countries worldwide, from japan to europe to the us were reading up on it since it was still a fairly new form of economics and governing not many knew a ton about. it's logical that some people might subscribe to it based on its theories, as the atrocities of Stain and Mao and the collapse in the 80s had yet to arrive. yes, the goal was global communism, and its totally logical to think many in the us would be interested in this in a time of depression. hopefully you wont blast me and call me a commie or something now since im not blasting it myself. i dont like it (communism), but this is how the world was at the time. it was new and intriguing, just as all new ideas are at some point in history.

^oh yeah, that too. see: eugene debs and the labor movements pre-depression.

and attacking your detractors and calling them all commies b/c theyre skeptical of you sounds like something good 'ol joe would do.

sources w/ a conservative reputation? cato is an intellectual source with a respectable, conservative reputation. the john birch society is the fucking looney bin.



[Edited on November 17, 2005 at 11:04 PM. Reason : .]

11/17/2005 11:01:47 PM

Quote :

"No more so than capitalism. Our fear was irrational."

Hmm, comparing an economic system that depends on the freedom between individuals to buy and sale goods to one another for each other's mutual benefit with the enslavement of an entire people while an elite few control all the resources who create a permanent ceiling that keeps everybody else in poverty, all in the name of said people, is a complete sham.

Our fears were not irrational unless you think that stealing highly classified intel is something that should be easily shrugged off.

Quote :

"The Socialist Party of America? The American Labor Party? The Progressive Era? Did you miss an entire week of class?"

Small inconsequential and short lasting political movements does not mean that anywhere close to a majority of this country embraces socialism. Quite the contrary.

Quote :

"I believe the phrase is innocent until proven guilty"

Yeah, I bet you're applying this very same standard those involved in the Plame case.[/sarcasm]

Quote :

"Yes, I actually do know the nature of the evidence: nonexistent"

Keep inventing shit if it makes you feel better but it doesn't make you right.

11/17/2005 11:06:57 PM

Quote :

"Our fears were not irrational unless you think that stealing highly classified intel is something that should be easily shrugged off."

We had effing federally funded witch hunts to combat an enemy that was no more threatening to us than we were to them.

Quote :

"Small inconsequential and short lasting political movements does not mean that anywhere close to a majority of this country embraces socialism. Quite the contrary."

When did I say majority? Go back and copy and paste where I said majority. Now.

As far as inconsequential, they got around 5% of the popular vote in national elections during that era. Are you saying 5% of America and all the 5%'s friends and relatives should be barred from gov't?

As far as short, it lasted 20 years, so please stfu about issues you clearly know nothing about.

Quote :

"Yeah, I bet you're applying this very same standard those involved in the Plame case.[/sarcasm]"

You forgot [/pansy-ass dodge]

Quote :

"Keep inventing shit if it makes you feel better but it doesn't make you right."

No, that's what McCarthy was doing.

I'm simply stating the fact that no evidence of any value was ever been produced.



[Edited on November 17, 2005 at 11:29 PM. Reason : ,]

11/17/2005 11:14:02 PM

Read Wintermule's link. While it does not name specifics, the piece does state that some of McCarty's claims were backed up by Soviet archives.

11/17/2005 11:22:12 PM

Hahah, you clearly didn't read that entire article.

because it pwns the hell out of Coulter, O'Reilly, and you.


I never said there weren't spies, I said our fears were irrational.

We had cause for serious concern.

Not hysteria

11/17/2005 11:28:21 PM

I am not as presumptuous to assume that I, sitting at my computer 40 plus years removed from the actual event, know the actual evidence as presented by other sources with regards to McCarthy's proof.

I would also like to see the evidence that the author refers to that proved that McCarthy was right.

My point is that his concern at the time was legitimate, unless, as previously stated, losing closely guarded sercets such as our atomic secrets is something that is of no consequence to you.

11/17/2005 11:48:42 PM

And that concern clearly warrented a politically motivated congressional witch hunt which ruined the lives of dozens of innocent people.

11/17/2005 11:51:20 PM

It's easy to make sweeping judgments about a highly sensitive situation 40 plus years after the fact, isn't it? Hindsight is always 20/20 as they say...

11/17/2005 11:53:35 PM

You have no problem defending McCarethy's sweeping judgements.

11/18/2005 12:00:15 AM

Quote :

"that some of McCarty's claims were backed up by Soviet archives."

Hmm...not exactly the most reliable source, eh?

(In Soviet Russia, Archives Back Up You!)

11/18/2005 7:13:38 AM

This is how you troll.

Ex's game is whack.

2/3/2006 5:00:44 PM