Pacifism and the Left

[JoeB131]

So you are saying that you are in fact a defense expert, right?

I'm saying 11 years of military service gives me more expertise than you have.

And more than everyone in the entire defense dept who recognizes the grave danger inherent in Iran having a nuclear bomb? You have more than all them, right? You're quite a guy.

Their jobs are dependent on people being afraid. You can't justify a 900 billion dollar defense budget without a scary bogeyman out there.

Mine isn't.

I remember when I was in, they were publishing OpFor booklets about how imminent the SOviet Threat was all the way up until the Berlin Wall Fell. Ooops. The Evil Empire turned out to be a collection of improverished countries.... Ooops.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What does that have to do with anything? He served. So did my dad.

Fact is, he was a cheap demagogue who destroyed the lives of innocent people because we got into a panic about what form of government other countries were choosing, like that was any of our ******* business.

It responds to this slander of yours:
"Seriously? Brave?"


And brave enough to confront the entire esteablishment:

President Roosevelt laughed off the charges against Hiss. Dean Acheson, then undersecretary of Treasury, not only vouched for Hiss and his brother, Donald, also charged by Whitaker, but Acheson immediately requested Donald as his assistant. Right on cue, the press vilified HUAC for persecuting Hiss.

President Truman denounced the Hiss investigation as a “red herring” by do-nothing Republicans (Whitaker Chambers, Witness, p. 564-74)

Felix Frankfurter and Adlai Stevenson offered to be character witnesses for Hiss. (McCarthy began referring to Stevenson as ‘Alger Stevenson.’) Eleanor Roosevelt said she believed Hiss.

But the American public listened to the hearings, and they believed Chambers: a Gallup poll found 4 out of 5 supported the HUAC.(Alan Weinstein, Perjury, p. 58) And the poll included 71% of Democrats who also agreed- just not the Democrat Party!


Then there are folks like you, and the rest of the Liberals who require the comfort of acceptance by the mob....



"...destroyed the lives of innocent people..."

Name one.

 

[Unkotare]

I'm saying 11 years of military service gives me more expertise than you have.

And more than everyone in the entire defense dept who recognizes the grave danger inherent in Iran having a nuclear bomb? You have more than all them, right? You're quite a guy.

Their jobs are dependent on people being afraid.

So you are saying 'yes' you are more of an expert than everyone in the defense dept? Wow.

 

[Unkotare]

I remember when I was in, they were publishing OpFor booklets about how imminent the SOviet Threat was all the way up until the Berlin Wall Fell. Ooops. The Evil Empire turned out to be a collection of improverished countries.... Ooops.

So, in your expert opinion (more expert in fact than everyone in the defense dept) the Soviet Union was not a threat? Imagine that.

 

[jillian]

OWS is as pacifist as the tea party is.

Are you ******* kidding me???

The Tea Party didn't do anything wrong....

Meanwhile OWS are actually creating new diseases, shitting in the streets, violently confronting people, attacking people, raping their own people, using babies as human shields, occupying private property, occupying foreclosed homes, occupying banks etc.....

WTF....

The Tea Party protested, cleaned up their protest site and then went home....

Anyone who would compare OWS to the Tea Party is retarded.....

As a libertarian I'm embarrassed that some of my fellow libertarian brothers and sisters even took part in OWS......

you aren't libertarian;

you're just ignorant.

i don't blame real libertarians for that, though.

 

[JoeB131]

What does that have to do with anything? He served. So did my dad.

Fact is, he was a cheap demagogue who destroyed the lives of innocent people because we got into a panic about what form of government other countries were choosing, like that was any of our ******* business.

It responds to this slander of yours:
"Seriously? Brave?"


And brave enough to confront the entire esteablishment:

President Roosevelt laughed off the charges against Hiss. Dean Acheson, then undersecretary of Treasury, not only vouched for Hiss and his brother, Donald, also charged by Whitaker, but Acheson immediately requested Donald as his assistant. Right on cue, the press vilified HUAC for persecuting Hiss.

President Truman denounced the Hiss investigation as a “red herring” by do-nothing Republicans (Whitaker Chambers, Witness, p. 564-74)

Felix Frankfurter and Adlai Stevenson offered to be character witnesses for Hiss. (McCarthy began referring to Stevenson as ‘Alger Stevenson.’) Eleanor Roosevelt said she believed Hiss.

But the American public listened to the hearings, and they believed Chambers: a Gallup poll found 4 out of 5 supported the HUAC.(Alan Weinstein, Perjury, p. 58) And the poll included 71% of Democrats who also agreed- just not the Democrat Party!


Then there are folks like you, and the rest of the Liberals who require the comfort of acceptance by the mob....

"...destroyed the lives of innocent people..."

Name one.

Again, I'm not going to argue with crazy here.

The internment of Japanese Americans in 1942 was immensely popular at the time, too.

Today it's a source of shame, as it should be.

We acted l ike a bunch of scared animals, and turned on each other. It was a very sad commentary on human nature.

Whether or not these people were "communists" or not is irrelevent.

McCarthy is considered a villian today. Only complete nutbags would refer to him as "Brave" or "A Hero".

 

[Unkotare]

The internment of Japanese Americans in 1942 was immensely popular at the time, too.

Today it's a source of shame, as it should be.

We acted l ike a bunch of scared animals, and turned on each other. It was a very sad commentary on human nature.

But according to your reasoning, since it was not illegal at the time (and was even upheld by FDR's whipped Supreme Court) you would not have been opposed to it, right?

 

[PoliticalChic]

What does that have to do with anything? He served. So did my dad.

Fact is, he was a cheap demagogue who destroyed the lives of innocent people because we got into a panic about what form of government other countries were choosing, like that was any of our ******* business.

It responds to this slander of yours:
"Seriously? Brave?"


And brave enough to confront the entire esteablishment:

President Roosevelt laughed off the charges against Hiss. Dean Acheson, then undersecretary of Treasury, not only vouched for Hiss and his brother, Donald, also charged by Whitaker, but Acheson immediately requested Donald as his assistant. Right on cue, the press vilified HUAC for persecuting Hiss.

President Truman denounced the Hiss investigation as a “red herring” by do-nothing Republicans (Whitaker Chambers, Witness, p. 564-74)

Felix Frankfurter and Adlai Stevenson offered to be character witnesses for Hiss. (McCarthy began referring to Stevenson as ‘Alger Stevenson.’) Eleanor Roosevelt said she believed Hiss.

But the American public listened to the hearings, and they believed Chambers: a Gallup poll found 4 out of 5 supported the HUAC.(Alan Weinstein, Perjury, p. 58) And the poll included 71% of Democrats who also agreed- just not the Democrat Party!


Then there are folks like you, and the rest of the Liberals who require the comfort of acceptance by the mob....

"...destroyed the lives of innocent people..."

Name one.

Again, I'm not going to argue with crazy here.

The internment of Japanese Americans in 1942 was immensely popular at the time, too.

Today it's a source of shame, as it should be.

We acted l ike a bunch of scared animals, and turned on each other. It was a very sad commentary on human nature.

Whether or not these people were "communists" or not is irrelevent.

McCarthy is considered a villian today. Only complete nutbags would refer to him as "Brave" or "A Hero".

Wrong on every count.

 

[JoeB131]

The internment of Japanese Americans in 1942 was immensely popular at the time, too.

Today it's a source of shame, as it should be.

We acted l ike a bunch of scared animals, and turned on each other. It was a very sad commentary on human nature.

But according to your reasoning, since it was not illegal at the time (and was even upheld by FDR's whipped Supreme Court) you would not have been opposed to it, right?

Um.. nope, but keep trying. I know you are dying to get me to endorse one of your false equivlencies...

 

[JoeB131]

Wrong on every count.

Well, you keep going to the Ann Coulter Crazy Well on that one.

Seriously. Just keep going there.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Wrong on every count.

Well, you keep going to the Ann Coulter Crazy Well on that one.

Seriously. Just keep going there.

As time goes by, scholars are less and less afraid to reveal the truth...FDR, McCarthy....I'm looking for the works to come on the rapist.

 

[Unkotare]

The internment of Japanese Americans in 1942 was immensely popular at the time, too.

Today it's a source of shame, as it should be.

We acted l ike a bunch of scared animals, and turned on each other. It was a very sad commentary on human nature.

But according to your reasoning, since it was not illegal at the time (and was even upheld by FDR's whipped Supreme Court) you would not have been opposed to it, right?

Um.. nope, but keep trying. ...

But that is the standard you established for yourself. Perhaps you are being inconsistent.

 

[Synthaholic]

'...replace "Communist" with "Republican",...'
That defies imagination....communists wanted a dictatorship with opponents in gulags....
Republicans want no such thing.

Correct. Republicans want Corporate Fascism, with opponents in homeless shelters.

 

[Synthaholic]

Wikipedia's list of people harmed by McCarthy's witchhunt:

Nelson Algren, writer[48]
Elmer Bernstein, composer and conductor[49]
David Bohm, physicist and philosopher[50]
Bertolt Brecht, poet, playwright, screenwriter
Charlie Chaplin, actor and director[51]
Aaron Copland, composer[52]
Bartley Crum, attorney[53]
Howard Da Silva, actor[54]
Jules Dassin, director[55]
Dolores del Río, actress[56]
W. E. B. Du Bois, civil rights activist and author[57]
Howard Fast, writer[58]
Carl Foreman, writer of High Noon
John Garfield, actor[52]
Jack Gilford, actor[54]
Ruth Gordon, actress[54]
Lee Grant, actress[59]
Dashiell Hammett, author[52]
Elizabeth Hawes, clothing designer, author, equal rights activist[60]
Lillian Hellman, playwright[52]
Lena Horne, singer [54]
Langston Hughes, writer[52]
Sam Jaffe, actor[52]
Theodore Kaghan, diplomat[61]
Garson Kanin, writer and director[52]
Benjamin Keen, historian[62]
Gypsy Rose Lee, actress and stripper[52]
Cornelius Lanczos, mathematician and physicist[63]
Arthur Laurents, playwright[54]
Philip Loeb, actor[64]
Joseph Losey, director[52]
Burgess Meredith, actor[52]
Arthur Miller, playwright and essayist[52]
Zero Mostel, actor[52]
J. Robert Oppenheimer, physicist, scientific director of the Manhattan Project[65]
Dorothy Parker, writer[52]
Linus Pauling, chemist, winner of two Nobel prizes[66]
Samuel Reber, diplomat[67]
Martin Ritt, actor and director[68]
Paul Robeson, actor, athlete, singer, writer, political activist[69]
Edward G. Robinson, actor[52]
Waldo Salt, screenwriter[70]
Pete Seeger, folk singer[52]
Artie Shaw, jazz musician[52]
Irwin Shaw, writer[54]
William L. Shirer, journalist[71]
Lionel Stander, actor[72]
Paul Sweezy, economist and founder-editor of Monthly Review[73]
Charles W. Thayer, diplomat[74]
Tsien Hsue-shen, physicist[75]

McCarthyism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We'll leave it to PC to prove that either

a. each of them was in fact a 'Communist', or, b. that the ones she can't prove were Communists were not in fact harmed by the accusation.

They missed a couple: Betty Garrett, who was a popular character actress, and her husband Larry Parks, who played Al Jolson in 'The Jolson Story'.

Garrett finally got work again in the 1970s, playing Archie Bunker's neighbor Irene on 'All In The Family', and the landlady on 'Laverne And Shirley'.

Parks had affiliations with the Communist Party early in his career, but had long ceased by the time of McCarthy's witch hunt.

"...had affiliations with the Communist Party..."

Just as you had a brief affiliation with learning.....

You're such a programmed mouthpiece. Communism has not been a villain for it's entire life. In the early days, it was looked at as another ideology. There was positive and negative articles about it. It was far from settled.

Perhaps you would be interested to know that at one time, smoking was thought to be good for you. True story!

So would you call smokers in the 1800s idiots for smoking, based on what we now know about it? Or were those people products of the times they lived in?

When Communism started in Russia, Capitalism wasn't so damn hot. It was right after Upton Sinclair's expose 'The Jungle', and the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire. The public was not exactly enthralled with the way they were treated by business.


You might know some of this if you ever took your head out of Limbaugh's ass.

 

[Synthaholic]

Um, sorry, when you go into crazy Ann Coulter territory and try to rewrite history, I'm not sure there's much to do with you.

Go into any History and PolSci department in accredited universities, see how far your position gets.

You're done.

Universities are bastions of Liberalism, don't you know!

Are you denying that?

They are bastions of learning and enlightenment.

If you equate that with Liberalism, I won't argue.

 

[Synthaholic]

And more than everyone in the entire defense dept who recognizes the grave danger inherent in Iran having a nuclear bomb? You have more than all them, right? You're quite a guy.

Their jobs are dependent on people being afraid.

So you are saying 'yes' you are more of an expert than everyone in the defense dept? Wow.

Don't you have some shit to fetish over?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Universities are bastions of Liberalism, don't you know!

Are you denying that?

They are bastions of learning and enlightenment.

If you equate that with Liberalism, I won't argue.

No sensible human being could agree with your conflation.
Of course, not being sensible, you have no problem with the nonsense.


1. “But for most professors, neither finding truth nor seeking wisdom nor teaching is the primary goal of the university; promoting leftist ideas is. In a talk before fellow economists, Lawrence Summers, president of Harvard University and secretary of commerce under President Bill Clinton, addressed the question of why there were so many fewer women than men in science, math and engineering. He suggested that among other reasons, one might be that women's brains are less suited to these subjects than men's brains. But such empirical truths are not utterable in the most intellectually closed places in America -- our universities. Over 100 Harvard professors signed a petition against President Summers, leftist alumni threatened to give no more money to Harvard, and the vast majority of Harvard's professors kept a cowardly silence while their colleagues sought to suppress completely respectable intellectual inquiry.

…In the year 2005, nearly four centuries after Galileo was forced to recant observable scientific facts about our solar system, the president of Harvard University was forced to do a similar thing.” Professors as inquisitors - Dennis Prager - Townhall Conservative Columnists



2. It is very difficult for many people to acknowledge the low intellectual and moral level to which many professors and universities have fallen. On Feb. 21, the 600 Northwestern University students enrolled in the popular Human Sexuality course taught by professor John Michael Bailey were told that if they wished to stay after class -- it was clearly made optional -- they would see a live demonstration of female ejaculation, the subject of that day's class. A naked young woman (not a student) would demonstrate a "f---saw" and come to orgasm in front of the students. About 120 students stayed.When word came out about this contribution to young people's understanding of life, the university defended it. Its official spokesman, Al Cubbage, released this statement: "Northwestern University faculty members engage in teaching and research on a wide variety of topics, some of them controversial and at the leading edge of their respective disciplines. The university supports the efforts of its faculty to further the advancement of knowledge."

…In Bailey's class and Mr. Cubbage's statement, we have reached the logical culmination of the '60s and '70s. Instead of studying Dead White European Males, students get to study a young white living female ejaculating with a f---saw…. For four years, the American college student is taught that human beings are animals…. the exhibition is no different than watching a female baboon having sex. http://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2011/03/08/the_$50,000_orgasm/page/2


3. What happened to the truth?

a. In academia, truth has fallen in priority to ideology, also known as the ‘greater truth’ of pre-formed conclusions. A case in point is climate change. Normal science discovers facts, and then constructs a theory from those facts. ‘Post-modern science’ starts with a theory that is politically sensitive, and then makes up facts to influence opinion in its favor.

b. Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), [http://mikehulme.org/] and was good enough to reveal the truth in the Guardian, 2007: “…this particular mode of scientific activity… has been labeled "post-normal" science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus as often on the process of science - who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy - as on the facts of science…. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.” The appliance of science | Society | The Guardian.


4. Professor Frank Kauffman…”An independent report on the School of Social Work at Missouri State University says officials there bullied students by creating "an atmosphere where the Code of Ethics is used in order to coerce students into certain belief systems," documenting allegations made by a Christian student who was penalized under the system.”

Frank G. Kauffman (Missouri State University)
As WND reported late last year, Missouri State social work professor Frank G. Kauffman was placed on leave as part of a settlement of a lawsuit brought on behalf of student Emily Brooker.
She refused his assignment to lobby for homosexual adoptions because it violated her religious beliefs, and then was brought up on ethics charges within the program's system. Her lawsuit, handled by The Alliance Defense Fund, was settled quickly by the school with the leave of absence as well as monetary damages and a removal from her record of the charges against her. ‘Toxic’ environment after Christian’s complaint


5. There are at least five areas to which PC applies and where it succeeded in imposing a fair amount of conformity. They are: 1) race-minority relations; 2) sexual and gender relations: 3) homosexuality; 4) American society as a whole; 5) Western culture and values. In regard to each, PC prescribes publicly acceptable opinions and attitudes which are often conveyed on the campuses by required courses, freshman orientation, sensitivity training, memoranda by administrators, speech codes, harassment codes, official and student publications and other means.

Deviations from the norm of PC may result in public abuse, ostracism, formal or informal sanctions, administrative reproach, delayed promotion, difficulty in finding a job, being sentenced to sensitivity training.

Paul Hollander, “Political correctness is alive and well on campus near you,” Washington Post, December 28, 1993, p. A19


I wonder if your opinion will change once you attend college....

 

[Synthaholic]

Are you denying that?

They are bastions of learning and enlightenment.

If you equate that with Liberalism, I won't argue.

No sensible human being could agree with your conflation.
Of course, not being sensible, you have no problem with the nonsense.


1. “But for most professors, neither finding truth nor seeking wisdom nor teaching is the primary goal of the university; promoting leftist ideas is. In a talk before fellow economists, Lawrence Summers, president of Harvard University and secretary of commerce under President Bill Clinton, addressed the question of why there were so many fewer women than men in science, math and engineering. He suggested that among other reasons, one might be that women's brains are less suited to these subjects than men's brains. But such empirical truths are not utterable in the most intellectually closed places in America -- our universities. Over 100 Harvard professors signed a petition against President Summers, leftist alumni threatened to give no more money to Harvard, and the vast majority of Harvard's professors kept a cowardly silence while their colleagues sought to suppress completely respectable intellectual inquiry.

…In the year 2005, nearly four centuries after Galileo was forced to recant observable scientific facts about our solar system, the president of Harvard University was forced to do a similar thing.” Professors as inquisitors - Dennis Prager - Townhall Conservative Columnists



2. It is very difficult for many people to acknowledge the low intellectual and moral level to which many professors and universities have fallen. On Feb. 21, the 600 Northwestern University students enrolled in the popular Human Sexuality course taught by professor John Michael Bailey were told that if they wished to stay after class -- it was clearly made optional -- they would see a live demonstration of female ejaculation, the subject of that day's class. A naked young woman (not a student) would demonstrate a "f---saw" and come to orgasm in front of the students. About 120 students stayed.When word came out about this contribution to young people's understanding of life, the university defended it. Its official spokesman, Al Cubbage, released this statement: "Northwestern University faculty members engage in teaching and research on a wide variety of topics, some of them controversial and at the leading edge of their respective disciplines. The university supports the efforts of its faculty to further the advancement of knowledge."

…In Bailey's class and Mr. Cubbage's statement, we have reached the logical culmination of the '60s and '70s. Instead of studying Dead White European Males, students get to study a young white living female ejaculating with a f---saw…. For four years, the American college student is taught that human beings are animals…. the exhibition is no different than watching a female baboon having sex. http://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2011/03/08/the_$50,000_orgasm/page/2


3. What happened to the truth?

a. In academia, truth has fallen in priority to ideology, also known as the ‘greater truth’ of pre-formed conclusions. A case in point is climate change. Normal science discovers facts, and then constructs a theory from those facts. ‘Post-modern science’ starts with a theory that is politically sensitive, and then makes up facts to influence opinion in its favor.

b. Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), [http://mikehulme.org/] and was good enough to reveal the truth in the Guardian, 2007: “…this particular mode of scientific activity… has been labeled "post-normal" science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus as often on the process of science - who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy - as on the facts of science…. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.” The appliance of science | Society | The Guardian.


4. Professor Frank Kauffman…”An independent report on the School of Social Work at Missouri State University says officials there bullied students by creating "an atmosphere where the Code of Ethics is used in order to coerce students into certain belief systems," documenting allegations made by a Christian student who was penalized under the system.”

Frank G. Kauffman (Missouri State University)
As WND reported late last year, Missouri State social work professor Frank G. Kauffman was placed on leave as part of a settlement of a lawsuit brought on behalf of student Emily Brooker.
She refused his assignment to lobby for homosexual adoptions because it violated her religious beliefs, and then was brought up on ethics charges within the program's system. Her lawsuit, handled by The Alliance Defense Fund, was settled quickly by the school with the leave of absence as well as monetary damages and a removal from her record of the charges against her. ‘Toxic’ environment after Christian’s complaint


5. There are at least five areas to which PC applies and where it succeeded in imposing a fair amount of conformity. They are: 1) race-minority relations; 2) sexual and gender relations: 3) homosexuality; 4) American society as a whole; 5) Western culture and values. In regard to each, PC prescribes publicly acceptable opinions and attitudes which are often conveyed on the campuses by required courses, freshman orientation, sensitivity training, memoranda by administrators, speech codes, harassment codes, official and student publications and other means.

Deviations from the norm of PC may result in public abuse, ostracism, formal or informal sanctions, administrative reproach, delayed promotion, difficulty in finding a job, being sentenced to sensitivity training.

Paul Hollander, “Political correctness is alive and well on campus near you,” Washington Post, December 28, 1993, p. A19


I wonder if your opinion will change once you attend college....

Dennis Prager.

It's cute how you use wingnut opinion columns to try to back up your bullshit.

 

[regent]

Some, perhaps most, high schools want no criticism, no parent groups making appointments regarding what how they are teaching, so many high schools avoid teaching controversial topics and avoid being on the five o'clock. When some students hit the university there suddenly seems to be no limit or censorship of topics and methods. There is, of course supervision, the primary one being the faculty then the administration. But most universities are reluctant to teach only noncontroversial topics were they to that would they still be universities?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Some, perhaps most, high schools want no criticism, no parent groups making appointments regarding what how they are teaching, so many high schools avoid teaching controversial topics and avoid being on the five o'clock. When some students hit the university there suddenly seems to be no limit or censorship of topics and methods. There is, of course supervision, the primary one being the faculty then the administration. But most universities are reluctant to teach only noncontroversial topics were they to that would they still be universities?

"...avoid teaching controversial topics..."

Time for a definition of terms, reggie....


“Controversial” means “telling the truth about liberals.”
a. “Stupid” means “threatening to the interests of the Democratic Party.”
b. Liberals have not only run out of arguments, they’ve run out of adjectives.
c. Words like ‘diverse,’ ‘tolerance,’ and ‘free speech,’ mean ‘Shut up, we win.’
d. Liberals use the word ‘science’ exactly as they use the word ‘constitutional.’ Both words are nothing more or less than a general statement of liberal approval, having nothing to do with either science or the Constitution."
Coulter