Where Did Our Republic Go??

[sealybobo]

Ronald Reagan had to reassure the American people that he wasn't going to run us into debt and then turn our nation over to the multinational corporations. In his first inaugural, he had to add, "Now, so there will be no misunderstanding, it is not my intention to do away with government. It is, rather, to make it work-work with us, not over us; to stand by our side, not ride on our back."

But what did Bush do? Exactly what Reagan promised he would not.

As we view today's corporate takeover of our government, We the People are faced with an historic challenge.

 

[PoliticalChic]

But you haven't explained...were you a fool then, or now?

I have never been a fool, except when I was in love. Can't help that.

I was, in my current opinion, mistaken back when I was a Communist. Not a fool. Just wrong. But only in part.

Senator Joseph McCarthy was a hero.

To tyrants and would-be tyrants, perhaps. Also to those who make heroes out of confused, attention-seeking drunks.

1. "I have never been a fool, except when I was in love."
I commiserate.

2. But, you might what to rethink that limited view, in the light of the fact that totalitarian philosophies begin with the premise that the right laws, the right governments, will change human nature so that one can find Utopia here, on earth.

The Constitution commemorates our revolution, and, as Madison states in the ‘Federalist,’ is the greatest of all reflections on human nature…"human beings are not angels.”

a. Humans are not perfectible, but are capable of self government. The republican form of government presupposes this idea of humans. Our government is not a controlling government, but must itself be controlled: by the Constitution....just, not if Progressives get their way, huh?

b. Communist Revolution is based on the idea of transforming human nature. “The New Soviet man or New Soviet person (Russian: новый советский челове&#1082, as postulated by the ideologists of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, was an archetype of a person with certain qualities that were said to be emerging as dominant among all citizens of the Soviet Union, irrespective of the country's long-standing cultural, ethnic, and linguistic diversity, creating a single Soviet people, Soviet nation.[1]
New Soviet man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Diversity and variety don't sit too high on the Left's agenda-ladder.
Equality and 'social justice,' right?

c. Leon Trotsky wrote in his Literature and Revolution [2] :
"The human species, the sluggish Homo sapiens, will once again enter the stage of radical reconstruction and become in his own hands the object of the most complex methods of artificial selection and psychophysical training... Man will make it his goal...to create a higher sociobiological type, a superman, if you will"
New Soviet man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, what did the totalitarians, your 'former' colleagues, do when humanity wouldn't change?

a. “Culture is a stubborn opponent. The Soviet Union attempted to create the New Soviet Man with gulags, psychiatric hospitals, and firing squads for seventy years and succeeded only in producing a more corrupt culture.” Bork, “Slouching Toward Gomorrah,” p. 198

b. Progressives have a similar view: human nature is plastic; politics is a means of perfecting man!

c. In 1969, Hillary Rodham gave the student commencement address at Wellesley in which she said that “ for too long our leaders have used politics as the art of making what appears to be impossible, possible….We’re not interested in social reconstruction; it’s human reconstruction.”
http://www.wellesley.edu/PublicAffa..._____________________________________________


You too?
Or are you sticking to the "ex-Marxist" thing, Red-Liz?


BTW....think we should have a national holiday for Senator McCarthy? After all...look what he saved us from.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ronald Reagan had to reassure the American people that he wasn't going to run us into debt and then turn our nation over to the multinational corporations. In his first inaugural, he had to add, "Now, so there will be no misunderstanding, it is not my intention to do away with government. It is, rather, to make it work-work with us, not over us; to stand by our side, not ride on our back."

But what did Bush do? Exactly what Reagan promised he would not.

As we view today's corporate takeover of our government, We the People are faced with an historic challenge.

Deficit under Reagan never over 6%; obama 9%. Bush 5%

 

[Foxfyre]

Still, I believe it actually started with Hamilton.

1. If one sees the hallmark of Progressivism as disrespect for the Constitution, and the idea of unalienable rights, and supports the primacy of the state over the individual, than the nod must go to Wilson....

....he suggested that the Constitution could be cast off and thrown away...
...that unalienable rights were mere fiction,...
...but Teddy Roosevelt is in the running, as per 'The New Nationalism' speech.

a. Woodrow Wilson's essay “Socialism and Democracy” ‘Limitations of public authority must be put aside; the state may cross that boundary at will.’The collective is not limited by individual rights."

2. But, I'll give your vote for Hamilton, this:

Both Herbert Croly and TR abhorred Jefferson’s legacy of limited government and uncontrolled individualism. Rather, they championed Hamilton’s legacy of strong government and elite leadership. Croly wrote that Jefferson “understood his fellow-countrymen better and trusted them more than his rival,” but was suspicious of any efficient political authority. The problem of the Hamiltonians (or Federalists) was that they came “to identify both anti-Federalism and democracy with political disorder and social instability.” But they did believe in “a fruitful liberty” so long as there was an efficient central government to promote the national welfare.

a. Croly favored Hamiltonianism that saw “interference with the natural course of American economic and political business and its regulation and guidance in the national direction.” The drawback was in linking the battle against instability and disorder, i.e. against anarchy and disintegration, to the support of “well-to-do-people,” rather than a broader constituency. The result was that a rising democracy came to distrust the national government. [see “The Promise of American Life.” by Croly]

3.My view of indicting Wilson is based on the influence of the German philosopher Hegel, who claimed the state as supreme. The source of Progressive ideas was Germany, specifically the philosophy of Hegel, and this euro-thinking placed the ruler above the ruled: Germans have a history of accepting authoritarian rule.

a. Hegel said, “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest” (Ralf Dahrendorf, "Society and Democracy in Germany").

b. The German influence reflected the “intoxicating effect of the undiluted Hegelian philosophy upon the American mind,” as progressive Charles Merriam once put it.


I'm hopeful that the Obama term represents the end of a century of Progressive Rule of our republic, the coda of destructive aria.

Unfortunately only 2 Republicans would actually try to roll back the Progressive Jihad: Palin and Paul; she's not running and the RNC would never let him win

You could add Bachmann to that list too, I think, and maybe one or two others.

What we need is a Ron Paul with his fiscal and mind-our-own-business sense without the looney tunes factor and with Palin and Bachmann's appreciation for basic American traditional values/social contract below the federal level and with a Reaganesque leadership skill set so that people will be inspired to follow.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. If one sees the hallmark of Progressivism as disrespect for the Constitution, and the idea of unalienable rights, and supports the primacy of the state over the individual, than the nod must go to Wilson....

....he suggested that the Constitution could be cast off and thrown away...
...that unalienable rights were mere fiction,...
...but Teddy Roosevelt is in the running, as per 'The New Nationalism' speech.

a. Woodrow Wilson's essay “Socialism and Democracy” ‘Limitations of public authority must be put aside; the state may cross that boundary at will.’The collective is not limited by individual rights."

2. But, I'll give your vote for Hamilton, this:

Both Herbert Croly and TR abhorred Jefferson’s legacy of limited government and uncontrolled individualism. Rather, they championed Hamilton’s legacy of strong government and elite leadership. Croly wrote that Jefferson “understood his fellow-countrymen better and trusted them more than his rival,” but was suspicious of any efficient political authority. The problem of the Hamiltonians (or Federalists) was that they came “to identify both anti-Federalism and democracy with political disorder and social instability.” But they did believe in “a fruitful liberty” so long as there was an efficient central government to promote the national welfare.

a. Croly favored Hamiltonianism that saw “interference with the natural course of American economic and political business and its regulation and guidance in the national direction.” The drawback was in linking the battle against instability and disorder, i.e. against anarchy and disintegration, to the support of “well-to-do-people,” rather than a broader constituency. The result was that a rising democracy came to distrust the national government. [see “The Promise of American Life.” by Croly]

3.My view of indicting Wilson is based on the influence of the German philosopher Hegel, who claimed the state as supreme. The source of Progressive ideas was Germany, specifically the philosophy of Hegel, and this euro-thinking placed the ruler above the ruled: Germans have a history of accepting authoritarian rule.

a. Hegel said, “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest” (Ralf Dahrendorf, "Society and Democracy in Germany").

b. The German influence reflected the “intoxicating effect of the undiluted Hegelian philosophy upon the American mind,” as progressive Charles Merriam once put it.


I'm hopeful that the Obama term represents the end of a century of Progressive Rule of our republic, the coda of destructive aria.

Unfortunately only 2 Republicans would actually try to roll back the Progressive Jihad: Palin and Paul; she's not running and the RNC would never let him win

You could add Bachmann to that list too, I think, and maybe one or two others.

What we need is a Ron Paul with his fiscal and mind-our-own-business sense without the looney tunes factor and with Palin and Bachmann's appreciation for basic American traditional values/social contract below the federal level and with a Reaganesque leadership skill set so that people will be inspired to follow.

Speaking of followers...did you see this:
Danica Patrick: “I leave it up to the government to make good decisions for Americans.”

Did Americans always think this way...
Where have all the flowers gone?

 

[Dragon]

But, you might what to rethink that limited view, in the light of the fact that totalitarian philosophies begin with the premise that the right laws, the right governments, will change human nature so that one can find Utopia here, on earth.

I don't care what "totalitarian philosophies" assert. They have nothing to do with me, and nothing to do with liberalism, classical or modern.

As I said, nothing but a boogie-man.

 

[PoliticalChic]

But, you might what to rethink that limited view, in the light of the fact that totalitarian philosophies begin with the premise that the right laws, the right governments, will change human nature so that one can find Utopia here, on earth.

I don't care what "totalitarian philosophies" assert. They have nothing to do with me, and nothing to do with liberalism, classical or modern.

As I said, nothing but a boogie-man.

1. Oooo....you sound a bit touchy about it....
...as an "ex-Marxist," is it the stain?

2. "...nothing to do with liberalism,..."
Not true, Red-Liz....

You see, every totalitarian straight-suit is the fruit of the 'poison tree'..the view that the some form of big government is necessary to teach folks the correct way to think, to act...
that some form of lock-step uniformity is the correct strategy.

That big government central planning is the correct path for the economy.

That government give-aways and equality of results is the desired goal, rather than the equality of opportunity of our Founders, the classical liberals.

3. And, while I'm instructing you in political theory, let me take a moment to add the correct use of language to the lesson.
"nothing but a boogie-man..."

"an imaginary evil character of supernatural powers,"
Bogeyman | Define Bogeyman at Dictionary.com

Now, I know that you are a bright Lizard...so why pretend that the
depredations of totalitarian rule is mythical?

Deflection.

You know that said doctrine is the most brutal, inhuman of endeavors...and
are afraid to acknowledge same.
True?

4. Before WW II, the same folks who championed Progressivism, viewed fascism as a noble economic agenda, and praised Mussolini. It was the horrors of the Holocaust that required both the rapid retreat from associations with the term fascism, and the rebranding by John Dewey of progressivism as liberalism.
W.E.B.DuBois suggested that National Socialism seemed an excellent model for economic organization. http://www.ghi-dc.org/files/publications/bu_supp/supp5/supp5_099.pdf

5. Peter Witonski, in his essay "The Historical Roots of American Planning" said: “Dewey was the first to argue that the world ‘liberal’—which once stood for liberal, free-market capitalism—could better serve the needs of social democracy in America than the world ‘socialism’..... o-called “liberals” support socialism, state ownership, bureaucratic management and statism.
Ending the Liberal Confusion, by Jim Peron


Shall we review:
The various permutations of totalitarianims include communism, national socialism, socialism, progressivism, fascism, modern liberalism....etc.

Did they kill millions, or are they mythical? Killed and repressed.

Are you as self-professed "ex-Marxist"? Seems so.

"They have nothing to do with me,..." Doesn't seem to be
the case, does it.

 

[Dragon]

You see, every totalitarian straight-suit is the fruit of the 'poison tree'..the view that the some form of big government is necessary to teach folks the correct way to think, to act...

And that, in turn, is associated with conservatism, not liberalism. It's conservatism that wants to maintain strict authority, conservatism that wants to preserve tradition against the challenge of any creative individual, conservatism that defends the Fatherland or the Motherland against alleged traitors. Even when totalitarians pay lip service (for the purpose of gaining support) to liberal values, they show their conservative real values in their willingness to brutalize people to protect national security:

To imprison social democrats and liberals as enemies of the state, the way Hitler did . . .

To purge and destroy his fellow revolutionaries as enemies of the state, the way Stalin did . . .

To ruin people's lives for their political beliefs, or even for their association with others, as McCarthy did . . .

The fact that you call McCarthy a "hero" shows your own true colors. Obviously you have no problem with government authority that smashes free thought and association flat, and tramples all over people's rights to protect the authority of the state.

I am not a totalitarian.

No liberal is a totalitarian.

You are one.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You see, every totalitarian straight-suit is the fruit of the 'poison tree'..the view that the some form of big government is necessary to teach folks the correct way to think, to act...

And that, in turn, is associated with conservatism, not liberalism. It's conservatism that wants to maintain strict authority, conservatism that wants to preserve tradition against the challenge of any creative individual, conservatism that defends the Fatherland or the Motherland against alleged traitors. Even when totalitarians pay lip service (for the purpose of gaining support) to liberal values, they show their conservative real values in their willingness to brutalize people to protect national security:

To imprison social democrats and liberals as enemies of the state, the way Hitler did . . .

To purge and destroy his fellow revolutionaries as enemies of the state, the way Stalin did . . .

To ruin people's lives for their political beliefs, or even for their association with others, as McCarthy did . . .

The fact that you call McCarthy a "hero" shows your own true colors. Obviously you have no problem with government authority that smashes free thought and association flat, and tramples all over people's rights to protect the authority of the state.

I am not a totalitarian.

No liberal is a totalitarian.

You are one.

Oh, boy...are you gonna take a spanking with this post!!!


1. " maintain strict authority," As in ObamaCare?

2. "against the challenge of any creative individual," You haven't noticed that 90% of GDP is the production of red tape and regulations...thank's to big government progressives.

3. "defends the Fatherland or the Motherland against alleged traitors" Along these lines:
"If the Obama Administration were to prosecute WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, it would be the sixth time the Administration has pressed charges against defendants suspected of leaking classified information. The government has only ever filed similar charges three times over the last 40 years."
Read more: Obama vs. Whistle-Blowers: Taking a Hard Line on Leaks - TIME

4. "Even when totalitarians pay lip service (for the purpose of gaining support) to liberal values," So. you admit that totalists subscribe to modern liberal doctrines? Good start!

5."... the way Hitler did . . ." But Hitler was a totalitarian...National Socialist.

6. " purge and destroy his fellow revolutionaries as enemies of the state, the way Stalin did"
Right....keep going!!! Now you're on my side.

7. "To ruin people's lives for their political beliefs, or even for their association with others, as McCarthy did . . ."

You couldn't be more wrong about the Senator.

a. The great Senator McCarthy refused to give out the names until he was force to:
" McCarty: “The Senator from Illinois demanded that I furnish all names. I told him that so far as I was concerned, that would be improper…I have enough to convince me that either they are members of the Communist Party or they have given great aid to the Communists: I may be wrong. That is why I said that unless the Senate demanded that I do so, I would not submit this publicly, but I would submit it to any committee…in executive session. It is possible that some of these persons will get a clean bill of health.”
!” (William F. Buckley and Brent Bozell, McCarty and His Enemies, p. 71, quoting the Congressional Record)

Could you name any one who wasn't a communist whose life was ruined by McCarthy?
Didn't think so.

b. Hollywood Blacklisting had nothing to do with McCarthy. The ‘Hollywood Ten’ were called before the HUAC in 1947. McCarthy had just been elected to the Senate, and the Alger Hiss exposure, indictment and conviction occurred before McCarthy made his famous 1950 speech in Wheeling, West Virginia, before McCarthy did any investigating of Hollywood. When anti-communism took its toll in Hollywood, the blacklisting took the “deadly” form of not having ones name in the credits, or living in Paris, or not being able to sell a teleplay for as much as three years. This for folks who had no problem with Ukrainian farmers and their children eating their shoes.

8. "government authority that smashes free thought..."
Wrong again, Red-Liz!
I fully support the actions of the hero, Senator McCarthy!
He did nothing to suppress free thought...he acted against Soviet spies who had access to classified data.

"He raised the issue of loyalty risks working for the government rather than proven cases of espionage. His argument was that there are many reasons that a person should not be handling classified material, far less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt that one was a Soviet spy."
Coulter, "Treason."

You have become the same source of entertainment as a piñata, and for the same reason: the fun of beating you with a stick!


Give up?
Admit you've been wrong about everything and throw yourself on the mercy of the court??

 

[Dragon]

1. " maintain strict authority," As in ObamaCare?

Nope. As in McCarthyism, the Red Scare in general, the draft . . . closest thing we have to it now is the Patriot Act. Which you probably approve of -- another point in evidence.

You haven't noticed that 90% of GDP is the production of red tape and regulations

That's both nonsense and totally irrelevant to what I was saying.

"defends the Fatherland or the Motherland against alleged traitors" Along these lines:
"If the Obama Administration

May as well stop there. You are trying to indict liberals. You need not mention Obama as if he were one. Nothing you say about him is in any way pertinent to the discussion, and I will save time henceforth by snipping any further reference to him or his administration.

So. you admit that totalists subscribe to modern liberal doctrines?

No, only that they sometimes pretend to, because liberalism is popular and they need popular support. In fact, none of them really do. Totalitarianism and liberalism are incompatible.

"... the way Hitler did . . ." But Hitler was a totalitarian...National Socialist.

That's why I used him as an example, of course -- duh!

Right....keep going!!! Now you're on my side.

Since I'm pointing out how your own views are similar to those of Hitler and Stalin, I hardly think so. Pay more attention, please.

The great Senator McCarthy refused to give out the names until he was force to

Actually, he didn't even then, because he had no names. He was making the whole thing up.

The Red Scare really preceded McCarthy anyway. He was mostly a buffoon who took advantage of it. Far more serious were the activities of the House Un-American Activities Committee. But it was all about quelling dissent and punishing people for their challenge to the established order -- in short, it was a totalitarian enterprise from start to finish, very similar to the activities of the Gestapo or the KGB, although thankfully not quite as thorough -- we were not, even then, a genuine totalitarian state.

It's one thing to seek out foreign espionage agents in the government, which is how it all began (e.g. the trial of Alger Hiss). But it's quite another thing to seek out and try to destroy people merely for their beliefs. Being a spy for the Soviet Union was a crime; being a Communist was not -- and trying to punish Communists as if it were was a totalitarian activity. What's even worse was that the anti-communist witch-hunting hysterics of the period sought out and punished people who belonged to organizations that weren't Communist, on the type of tar-brushing, guilt-by-association balderdash that you are ladling up here and now: because those organizations were on a list that the despots wanted to discredit.

Communism was totalitarian. So was anti-Communism.

Liberalism is not, and never was, and never will be; the two are mutually exclusive and fundamentally opposed.

Could you name any one who wasn't a communist whose life was ruined by McCarthy?

Sure, start with Charles LaFollette. For the most part, however, he was prevented from doing any serious damage by the Tydings Committee, which gave his claims the disdainful treatment they deserved.

However, you're missing the point. There is nothing illegal about being a Communist. Just so we put things in proper perspective, I want to quote you the relevant part of the United States Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, or to petition the government for redress of grievances."

First Amendment, U.S. Constitution. (Emphasis added.) Belonging to a political philosophy is a function of peaceful assembly; moreover, expressing political views is a function of free speech. Only totalitarian states punish people for belonging to political parties or expressing political views, no matter what those views may be. As that is what the anti-Communist witch-hunting hysteria sought to do, it was an enterprise totalitarian in nature, although thankfully not in scope.

The real damning criticism of McCarthy and his ilk is not that most of those they sought to condemn were not Communists, although that's also true. The real damning criticism is that to condemn people for being Communists even if they really are is against everything America stands for, is a dire offense against liberty, and is a totalitarian act very much along the same lines as Hitler's concentration camps or Stalin's purges.

And you approve of this. I am not the totalitarian here. You are.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. " maintain strict authority," As in ObamaCare?

Nope. As in McCarthyism, the Red Scare in general, the draft . . . closest thing we have to it now is the Patriot Act. Which you probably approve of -- another point in evidence.

You haven't noticed that 90% of GDP is the production of red tape and regulations

That's both nonsense and totally irrelevant to what I was saying.



May as well stop there. You are trying to indict liberals. You need not mention Obama as if he were one. Nothing you say about him is in any way pertinent to the discussion, and I will save time henceforth by snipping any further reference to him or his administration.



No, only that they sometimes pretend to, because liberalism is popular and they need popular support. In fact, none of them really do. Totalitarianism and liberalism are incompatible.



That's why I used him as an example, of course -- duh!



Since I'm pointing out how your own views are similar to those of Hitler and Stalin, I hardly think so. Pay more attention, please.

The great Senator McCarthy refused to give out the names until he was force to

Actually, he didn't even then, because he had no names. He was making the whole thing up.

The Red Scare really preceded McCarthy anyway. He was mostly a buffoon who took advantage of it. Far more serious were the activities of the House Un-American Activities Committee. But it was all about quelling dissent and punishing people for their challenge to the established order -- in short, it was a totalitarian enterprise from start to finish, very similar to the activities of the Gestapo or the KGB, although thankfully not quite as thorough -- we were not, even then, a genuine totalitarian state.

It's one thing to seek out foreign espionage agents in the government, which is how it all began (e.g. the trial of Alger Hiss). But it's quite another thing to seek out and try to destroy people merely for their beliefs. Being a spy for the Soviet Union was a crime; being a Communist was not -- and trying to punish Communists as if it were was a totalitarian activity. What's even worse was that the anti-communist witch-hunting hysterics of the period sought out and punished people who belonged to organizations that weren't Communist, on the type of tar-brushing, guilt-by-association balderdash that you are ladling up here and now: because those organizations were on a list that the despots wanted to discredit.

Communism was totalitarian. So was anti-Communism.

Liberalism is not, and never was, and never will be; the two are mutually exclusive and fundamentally opposed.

Could you name any one who wasn't a communist whose life was ruined by McCarthy?

Sure, start with Charles LaFollette. For the most part, however, he was prevented from doing any serious damage by the Tydings Committee, which gave his claims the disdainful treatment they deserved.

However, you're missing the point. There is nothing illegal about being a Communist. Just so we put things in proper perspective, I want to quote you the relevant part of the United States Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, or to petition the government for redress of grievances."

First Amendment, U.S. Constitution. (Emphasis added.) Belonging to a political philosophy is a function of peaceful assembly; moreover, expressing political views is a function of free speech. Only totalitarian states punish people for belonging to political parties or expressing political views, no matter what those views may be. As that is what the anti-Communist witch-hunting hysteria sought to do, it was an enterprise totalitarian in nature, although thankfully not in scope.

The real damning criticism of McCarthy and his ilk is not that most of those they sought to condemn were not Communists, although that's also true. The real damning criticism is that to condemn people for being Communists even if they really are is against everything America stands for, is a dire offense against liberty, and is a totalitarian act very much along the same lines as Hitler's concentration camps or Stalin's purges.

And you approve of this. I am not the totalitarian here. You are.

"...because he had no names. He was making the whole thing up."
This, after you claimed that he 'ruined people's lives...."

It's clear that you haven't a clue about the Senator, nor about the period.

Neither have you countered any of the posts....

You should learn not to merely accept and repeat the blather of the Left, and do both some research and some thinking.

With very little effort, you have become to any with serious knowledge of the subject what the Washington Generals are to the Harlem Globetrotters.


No competition, and hardly worth the effort.

 

[Dr Grump]

...that unalienable rights were mere fiction,...
..

That's because they are....

 

[TakeAStepBack]

No shit. Dragon should read blacklisted by history and return with humble apologies of misunderstanding. The case McCarthy spoke on starting in Wheeling in 1950, was based on inside FBI information and the Gregory case dating back more than a decade before he brought it back to the front pages. The infiltration of soviets into the state department and then on to many areas within the federal government was real.

The book will spell it out using declassified documentation and six years of research. McCarthy was deliberately thrown under the bus because the entire affair made the highest office in the land look both foolish and perhaps, even implicated them from prior years. It was an embarrassment no one wanted to deal with. But it was very real.

Everything else PC is saying, is about as dead on as I could put it too.

 

[Dr Grump]

1. " maintain strict authority," As in ObamaCare?

Nope. As in McCarthyism, the Red Scare in general, the draft . . . closest thing we have to it now is the Patriot Act. Which you probably approve of -- another point in evidence.



That's both nonsense and totally irrelevant to what I was saying.



May as well stop there. You are trying to indict liberals. You need not mention Obama as if he were one. Nothing you say about him is in any way pertinent to the discussion, and I will save time henceforth by snipping any further reference to him or his administration.



No, only that they sometimes pretend to, because liberalism is popular and they need popular support. In fact, none of them really do. Totalitarianism and liberalism are incompatible.



That's why I used him as an example, of course -- duh!



Since I'm pointing out how your own views are similar to those of Hitler and Stalin, I hardly think so. Pay more attention, please.



Actually, he didn't even then, because he had no names. He was making the whole thing up.

The Red Scare really preceded McCarthy anyway. He was mostly a buffoon who took advantage of it. Far more serious were the activities of the House Un-American Activities Committee. But it was all about quelling dissent and punishing people for their challenge to the established order -- in short, it was a totalitarian enterprise from start to finish, very similar to the activities of the Gestapo or the KGB, although thankfully not quite as thorough -- we were not, even then, a genuine totalitarian state.

It's one thing to seek out foreign espionage agents in the government, which is how it all began (e.g. the trial of Alger Hiss). But it's quite another thing to seek out and try to destroy people merely for their beliefs. Being a spy for the Soviet Union was a crime; being a Communist was not -- and trying to punish Communists as if it were was a totalitarian activity. What's even worse was that the anti-communist witch-hunting hysterics of the period sought out and punished people who belonged to organizations that weren't Communist, on the type of tar-brushing, guilt-by-association balderdash that you are ladling up here and now: because those organizations were on a list that the despots wanted to discredit.

Communism was totalitarian. So was anti-Communism.

Liberalism is not, and never was, and never will be; the two are mutually exclusive and fundamentally opposed.

Could you name any one who wasn't a communist whose life was ruined by McCarthy?

Sure, start with Charles LaFollette. For the most part, however, he was prevented from doing any serious damage by the Tydings Committee, which gave his claims the disdainful treatment they deserved.

However, you're missing the point. There is nothing illegal about being a Communist. Just so we put things in proper perspective, I want to quote you the relevant part of the United States Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, or to petition the government for redress of grievances."

First Amendment, U.S. Constitution. (Emphasis added.) Belonging to a political philosophy is a function of peaceful assembly; moreover, expressing political views is a function of free speech. Only totalitarian states punish people for belonging to political parties or expressing political views, no matter what those views may be. As that is what the anti-Communist witch-hunting hysteria sought to do, it was an enterprise totalitarian in nature, although thankfully not in scope.

The real damning criticism of McCarthy and his ilk is not that most of those they sought to condemn were not Communists, although that's also true. The real damning criticism is that to condemn people for being Communists even if they really are is against everything America stands for, is a dire offense against liberty, and is a totalitarian act very much along the same lines as Hitler's concentration camps or Stalin's purges.

And you approve of this. I am not the totalitarian here. You are.

"...because he had no names. He was making the whole thing up."
This, after you claimed that he 'ruined people's lives...."

It's clear that you haven't a clue about the Senator, nor about the period.

Neither have you countered any of the posts....

You should learn not to merely accept and repeat the blather of the Left, and do both some research and some thinking.

With very little effort, you have become to any with serious knowledge of the subject what the Washington Generals are to the Harlem Globetrotters.


No competition, and hardly worth the effort.

Ah, yes, the great Monday morning quater backing and the rewriting of history by making out Joe Mccarthy to be some sort of hero. He was a hideous, pathetic alcoholic.

I find it ironic that one of the main abusers of your constitution is one of your heros. Which is even more amazing when you look at your whine in the OP.

In one breath you're wondering where your republic went, while at the same time championing somebody who had a good crack at trying to dismantle it.

Only a neocon whackjob loon would use that logic....

 

[TakeAStepBack]

And so after seeing how well the slow turn of classical liberals into neo-communists that you see here in this thread, is a big part of where the republic went. A very, very unfortunate thing.

 

[Dragon]

No competition, and hardly worth the effort.

[Bow]

Your surrender is gracefully accepted.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Nope. As in McCarthyism, the Red Scare in general, the draft . . . closest thing we have to it now is the Patriot Act. Which you probably approve of -- another point in evidence.



That's both nonsense and totally irrelevant to what I was saying.



May as well stop there. You are trying to indict liberals. You need not mention Obama as if he were one. Nothing you say about him is in any way pertinent to the discussion, and I will save time henceforth by snipping any further reference to him or his administration.



No, only that they sometimes pretend to, because liberalism is popular and they need popular support. In fact, none of them really do. Totalitarianism and liberalism are incompatible.



That's why I used him as an example, of course -- duh!



Since I'm pointing out how your own views are similar to those of Hitler and Stalin, I hardly think so. Pay more attention, please.



Actually, he didn't even then, because he had no names. He was making the whole thing up.

The Red Scare really preceded McCarthy anyway. He was mostly a buffoon who took advantage of it. Far more serious were the activities of the House Un-American Activities Committee. But it was all about quelling dissent and punishing people for their challenge to the established order -- in short, it was a totalitarian enterprise from start to finish, very similar to the activities of the Gestapo or the KGB, although thankfully not quite as thorough -- we were not, even then, a genuine totalitarian state.

It's one thing to seek out foreign espionage agents in the government, which is how it all began (e.g. the trial of Alger Hiss). But it's quite another thing to seek out and try to destroy people merely for their beliefs. Being a spy for the Soviet Union was a crime; being a Communist was not -- and trying to punish Communists as if it were was a totalitarian activity. What's even worse was that the anti-communist witch-hunting hysterics of the period sought out and punished people who belonged to organizations that weren't Communist, on the type of tar-brushing, guilt-by-association balderdash that you are ladling up here and now: because those organizations were on a list that the despots wanted to discredit.

Communism was totalitarian. So was anti-Communism.

Liberalism is not, and never was, and never will be; the two are mutually exclusive and fundamentally opposed.



Sure, start with Charles LaFollette. For the most part, however, he was prevented from doing any serious damage by the Tydings Committee, which gave his claims the disdainful treatment they deserved.

However, you're missing the point. There is nothing illegal about being a Communist. Just so we put things in proper perspective, I want to quote you the relevant part of the United States Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, or to petition the government for redress of grievances."

First Amendment, U.S. Constitution. (Emphasis added.) Belonging to a political philosophy is a function of peaceful assembly; moreover, expressing political views is a function of free speech. Only totalitarian states punish people for belonging to political parties or expressing political views, no matter what those views may be. As that is what the anti-Communist witch-hunting hysteria sought to do, it was an enterprise totalitarian in nature, although thankfully not in scope.

The real damning criticism of McCarthy and his ilk is not that most of those they sought to condemn were not Communists, although that's also true. The real damning criticism is that to condemn people for being Communists even if they really are is against everything America stands for, is a dire offense against liberty, and is a totalitarian act very much along the same lines as Hitler's concentration camps or Stalin's purges.

And you approve of this. I am not the totalitarian here. You are.

"...because he had no names. He was making the whole thing up."
This, after you claimed that he 'ruined people's lives...."

It's clear that you haven't a clue about the Senator, nor about the period.

Neither have you countered any of the posts....

You should learn not to merely accept and repeat the blather of the Left, and do both some research and some thinking.

With very little effort, you have become to any with serious knowledge of the subject what the Washington Generals are to the Harlem Globetrotters.


No competition, and hardly worth the effort.

Ah, yes, the great Monday morning quater backing and the rewriting of history by making out Joe Mccarthy to be some sort of hero. He was a hideous, pathetic alcoholic.

I find it ironic that one of the main abusers of your constitution is one of your heros. Which is even more amazing when you look at your whine in the OP.

In one breath you're wondering where your republic went, while at the same time championing somebody who had a good crack at trying to dismantle it.

Only a neocon whackjob loon would use that logic....

Another successful attempt to sustain ignorance.


Brilliant post, brimming with scintillating doses of enlightenment.

In the interests of safety, one should avoid your posts if one is operating heavy machinery, or driving on the highway….

 

[Dr Grump]

Another successful attempt to sustain ignorance.


Brilliant post, brimming with scintillating doses of enlightenment.

In the interests of safety, one should avoid your posts if one is operating heavy machinery, or driving on the highway….

Great comeback <rolls eyes>....

 

[PoliticalChic]

No competition, and hardly worth the effort.

[Bow]

Your surrender is gracefully accepted.

David Blaine never made anything disappear as fast as your reputation.
If this absurd post is your attempt at face-saving, the necessity is understandable.

I am puzzled, though, as to why you would bother in this thread, as you are not equipped with
any knowledge of the subject.

Why not simply wait for a topic in which you have some cache...unless such subjects tend to be few and far between.

 

[Dragon]

I've pointed out before, PC, that when soundly trounced -- when your arguments have been shown to be completely empty and without foundation -- you fall back on personal insult and present a post containing nothing in the way of argument or evidence whatsoever; nothing, in fact, EXCEPT personal invective. It's a clear concession of defeat, whether you realize it or not.

Ever see a cat-fight? (I mean a literal cat-fight, not one between two women.) Ever see the loser scamper away into a safe place, hiss at the winner, and lick its wounds as nonchalant as possible, apparently attempting to convey that it COULD have won if the other cat was worth the bother?

That's what you remind me of at times like these.