Verifying Your Political ID

[PoliticalChic]

I don't like the McCarthy part of this post. I remember that time. I disagreed with him vehemently

That would identify you as being totally uninformed.

Revealed KGB archives and the Venona Papers have proven him correct.

 

[JoeB131]

[
Judging by how little you know vis-a-vis the history that I post, " I have a degree in history from the University of Illinois" is hard to believe.

Let me put it another way.

To make a critical statement about a book you haven't read pretty much removes any cachet you claim to have.

That...plus the fact that you are wrong in just about all of your posts, means that going to your for a view on any historic fact is akin to going to England for dental care.

Hey....see if anyone likes you enough to get you a Christmas present....ask for Diana West's "American Betrayal.'

It'd be a good start.

Actually, the British have pretty good dental health. You are engaging in a stereotype.

And, no, frankly, I've wasted too much of my life on Right Wing Bullshit, to be honest with you.

I was done with you right wingers the minute my boss screwed me over and said, "Thank God I don't have to deal with a union."

I am really honestly through with you wingnuts who keep bending over for the rich as well.

But to the point, the books you cite aren't used in universities. Well, maybe universities that teach Scientific Creationism, but not the real ones. Now why is that?

There's a difference between Scholarly works and Propaganda. BBOC falls into the "Propaganda" sphere, easily.

Not to say that Mao and Stalin weren't ruthless assholes. They were and they had to be, otherwise there would be no Russians or Chinese today. You need to be a ruthless asshole when you are fighting for national survival against people who pretty much want to exterminate you.

 

[JoeB131]

I don't like the McCarthy part of this post. I remember that time. I disagreed with him vehemently

That would identify you as being totally uninformed.

Revealed KGB archives and the Venona Papers have proven him correct.

Well, no, they really didn't. As much as you want to insist he did.


He accused everyone who he didn't like of being a communist, until people got fed up with his witchhunts and his FELLOW REPUBLICANS censured him.

I want to repeat that last part.

HIS FELLOW REPUBLICANS censured the guy. Stripped him of all his committee posts and let him drift off to drink himself to death.

The sad thing is, we let a crazy drunk engage in such a witchhunt.

 

[Pickle]

Holodomor > holocaust

Holodomor being the result of secular humanists punishing peasants for rejecting their noble collectivism.

Or that after the country had been devestated by several wars they just had some shitty famines.

Nope, the holodomor was secular humanists punishing christians for not being collectivists.

Another recent example of secular humanist government slaughtering christians is north korea's recent execution of people for simply having a bible.

 

[initforme]

" but speak out about how the poor are hurting this nation are in my eyes the biggest hardest hypocrites this nation has"....I would like to know exactly what you mean by that.
I don't recall any saying same."

Those who complain about SS, Medicare, Medicaid being bad for the nation. I know many people who worked their tales off their whole lives whose only security is Social security and Medicare. Yet those are demonized. Those who say the poor have it too good or the poor here live better than anywhere else in the world. I could care less. If you are poor you are poor. I am speaking about the working poor. Those who work hard to barely make ends meet. There are people who look down upon them. And they have the audacity to go to church and they call themselves Christians. Frankly they are anything but. Yes there are those that abuse the system. There are also those at the top that abuse the system at the expense of everyone else. Its called corporate America run amok. But I do suppose you support the corporations in every way.

 

[initforme]

"That would identify you as being totally uninformed.

Revealed KGB archives and the Venona Papers have proven him correct"


Yes McCarthy was a hero. Lol.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I don't like the McCarthy part of this post. I remember that time. I disagreed with him vehemently

That would identify you as being totally uninformed.

Revealed KGB archives and the Venona Papers have proven him correct.

Well, no, they really didn't. As much as you want to insist he did.


He accused everyone who he didn't like of being a communist, until people got fed up with his witchhunts and his FELLOW REPUBLICANS censured him.

I want to repeat that last part.

HIS FELLOW REPUBLICANS censured the guy. Stripped him of all his committee posts and let him drift off to drink himself to death.

The sad thing is, we let a crazy drunk engage in such a witchhunt.

This becomes redundant....but it is necessary to show that you know nothing and plan to remain informed thusly.

Your opinions are blather based on bias....certainly not knowledge.

The informed acknowledge that the Venona Papers pretty much proved what McCarthy said.



You haven't read them, have you?

And you have admitted that you haven't read "The Black Book of Communism"...
"Already famous throughout Europe, this international bestseller plumbs recently opened archives in the former Soviet bloc to reveal the actual, practical accomplishments of Communism around the world: terror, torture, famine, mass deportations, and massacres. Astonishing in the sheer detail it amasses, the book is the first comprehensive attempt to catalogue and analyze the crimes of Communism over seventy years." https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/106169.The_Black_Book_of_Communism



Nor any books by Haynes and Klehr?
Nor Romerstein and Breindel?
Nor "The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB" by Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin?

How about "Dupes: How America's Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century" by Paul Kengor

Perhaps you've never read any books on the subject.......



Ignorant?

Benighted?

Uninformed?

Oblivious?


Or...just plain Erroneous Joe.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"That would identify you as being totally uninformed.

Revealed KGB archives and the Venona Papers have proven him correct"


Yes McCarthy was a hero. Lol.

".... original source archives that have come to light in recent years suggest that, if anything, McCarthy understated the breadth of Soviet infiltration. These include the revelations by the former KGB Chief Oleg Gordievsky, who in conjunction with the Cambridge intelligence expert Christopher Andrew, began exposing the scope of Soviet penetration in 1990, even before the USSR collapsed; the U.S. intelligence community’s Venona decryptions that began becoming public in the mid-1990s and were summarized in breathtaking detail by Herbert Romerstein and Eric Breindel; the investigative work of Jerrold and Leona Schecter, who traced the flow of Venona revelations into the Truman White House, beginning as early as 1945; the former KGB archivist Vasily Mitrokhin, who smuggled his files out of Moscow in 1992 (and who, in conjunction with Christopher Andrew, found astonishing the apathy of American historians regarding the KGB’s influence operations); the groundbreaking scholarship of John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr on the history of Communist espionage and the mulish determination of the academy not to notice it; the voluminous evidence of American treason on Moscow’s behalf amassed by Allen Weinstein and Alexander Vassiliev; the files of FBI investigations and congressional hearings on Communist infiltration that have recently been declassified; and so on."
Red herrings by Andrew C. McCarthy - The New Criterion


Instead of simply accepting the Liberal slanders, you might want to pick up one of the books mentioned above....

...or is it simply easier to accept the lies.

 

[initforme]

Reading all of those books isn't going to change my mind. The way he did things was out of line in my book.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Reading all of those books isn't going to change my mind. The way he did things was out of line in my book.

"Reading all of those books isn't going to change my mind..."


You've made my point.

 

[SwimExpert]

"That would identify you as being totally uninformed.

Revealed KGB archives and the Venona Papers have proven him correct"


Yes McCarthy was a hero. Lol.

".... original source archives that have come to light in recent years suggest that, if anything, McCarthy understated the breadth of Soviet infiltration. These include the revelations by the former KGB Chief Oleg Gordievsky, who in conjunction with the Cambridge intelligence expert Christopher Andrew, began exposing the scope of Soviet penetration in 1990, even before the USSR collapsed; the U.S. intelligence community’s Venona decryptions that began becoming public in the mid-1990s and were summarized in breathtaking detail by Herbert Romerstein and Eric Breindel; the investigative work of Jerrold and Leona Schecter, who traced the flow of Venona revelations into the Truman White House, beginning as early as 1945; the former KGB archivist Vasily Mitrokhin, who smuggled his files out of Moscow in 1992 (and who, in conjunction with Christopher Andrew, found astonishing the apathy of American historians regarding the KGB’s influence operations); the groundbreaking scholarship of John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr on the history of Communist espionage and the mulish determination of the academy not to notice it; the voluminous evidence of American treason on Moscow’s behalf amassed by Allen Weinstein and Alexander Vassiliev; the files of FBI investigations and congressional hearings on Communist infiltration that have recently been declassified; and so on."
Red herrings by Andrew C. McCarthy - The New Criterion


Instead of simply accepting the Liberal slanders, you might want to pick up one of the books mentioned above....

...or is it simply easier to accept the lies.

The fact still remains that McCarthy did not expose any spies. Not a single one.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"That would identify you as being totally uninformed.

Revealed KGB archives and the Venona Papers have proven him correct"


Yes McCarthy was a hero. Lol.

".... original source archives that have come to light in recent years suggest that, if anything, McCarthy understated the breadth of Soviet infiltration. These include the revelations by the former KGB Chief Oleg Gordievsky, who in conjunction with the Cambridge intelligence expert Christopher Andrew, began exposing the scope of Soviet penetration in 1990, even before the USSR collapsed; the U.S. intelligence community’s Venona decryptions that began becoming public in the mid-1990s and were summarized in breathtaking detail by Herbert Romerstein and Eric Breindel; the investigative work of Jerrold and Leona Schecter, who traced the flow of Venona revelations into the Truman White House, beginning as early as 1945; the former KGB archivist Vasily Mitrokhin, who smuggled his files out of Moscow in 1992 (and who, in conjunction with Christopher Andrew, found astonishing the apathy of American historians regarding the KGB’s influence operations); the groundbreaking scholarship of John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr on the history of Communist espionage and the mulish determination of the academy not to notice it; the voluminous evidence of American treason on Moscow’s behalf amassed by Allen Weinstein and Alexander Vassiliev; the files of FBI investigations and congressional hearings on Communist infiltration that have recently been declassified; and so on."
Red herrings by Andrew C. McCarthy - The New Criterion


Instead of simply accepting the Liberal slanders, you might want to pick up one of the books mentioned above....

...or is it simply easier to accept the lies.

The fact still remains that McCarthy did not expose any spies. Not a single one.

Must you insist on shouting from the rooftops "I don't have a clue about what I'm posting about!!"

Relax.....it was clear from the beginning.


Here is your remedial:


1. McCarthy’s primary goal was not to expose individual Communists, he was simply demanding of the liberal establishment: Why were they sheltering traitors?

It was the exact same point Eisenhower was making when he directed Attorney General Brownell to inform the public that President Truman had wittingly place a Soviet spy in a key position at the IMF…

For decades, people who should not have been allowed anywhere a government job were strolling into sensitive positions with the US government. For the most part, accusations were not aimed at sending the accused to a gulag, only to private practice.
Coulter, "Treason"




2. “A host of other right-wing Republicans had sought to dramatize the communism issue, but only McCarthy succeeded. And McCarthy succeeded while the others did not in part because of his thoroughgoing contempt for the rules of political controversy.”
Michael Paul Rogin, "The Intellectuals and McCarthy: The Radical Specter, p. 251

He forced liberals to explain themselves in full view of the American people. So they made McCarthy the issue.





3. The question wasn’t simply whether people like William Remington were agents of Stalin. He was [War Production Board; Office of Emergency Management, convicted for perjury, killed in prison] (see listing of Soviet agents List of Soviet agents in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) The question was whether he should be working for the government.




4. One of the lies about McCarty was that he “named names” ruining peoples’ lives with reckless accusations. Actually, McCarthy resisted releasing names to the public, except when Democrats forced him to name names.

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. McCarty said that he would attach names to the cases only in a closed committee hearing. When he presented his case against the State Department on the Senate floor, McCarthy described the loyalty risks anonymously as case #1, case #2, and so on. Democrats demanded names. Democrat Senate Majority Leader Scott Lucas (D-Ill.) said: “I want to remain here until he names them!”
(William F. Buckley and Brent Bozell, McCarty and His Enemies, p. 70, quoting the Congressional Record).

Democrat Withers of Kentucky: “I should like to ask the Senator what reason he has for not calling names?” The Democrats voted to compel him to name names in front of the press.






5. The above was McCarthy's purpose, and the following proves how successful he was:

During the 1950s, the Gallup Organization responded to new issues and personalities as they related to the ongoing superpower struggle. Joseph McCarthy entered the public opinion polls for the first time, and won initial approval. Fifty percent agreed with McCarthy in a March 1950 survey that there were communists working in the State Department.

A June 1950 poll found 45 percent expressed unqualified approval of McCarthy saying "he is anxious to rid us of communists and he is right"; 16 percent expressed qualified approval with remarks such as "there must be some foundation for his charges, but they are greatly exaggerated"; 31 percent disbelieved McCarthy saying he is "a rabble-rouser seeking personal glory who is trying to get reelected"; 8 percent were unsure what to make of McCarthy.
Cold War International History Conference: Paper by John White






6. While clear that your are clueless, I hope the above makes a dent on your future posts.

You wrote: "The fact still remains that McCarthy did not expose any spies. Not a single one."

Wrong.
His purpose was to have them removed from sensitive positions in the government....and in many cases they were. Some 100 were dismissed, many more resigned.


Senator Joe McCarthy confronted government officials concealing communist involvement and excessively lax security with regards to Communists in sensitive U.S. Government posts. In many cases he was on target, with over 81 of the names he gave the Tydings committee resulting in resignations or movement of security risks.

Arthur Herman, author of "Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator," says that the accuracy of McCarthy's charges "was no longer a matter of debate," that they are "now accepted as fact." And The New York Post's Eric Fettmann has noted: "growing historical evidence underscores that, whatever his rhetorical and investigative excesses - and they were substantial - McCarthy was a lot closer to the truth about Communism than were his foes."

 

[SwimExpert]

.....

You clearly state in the OP that McCarthy revealed the spies in the Roosevelt Administration. Now you say that he didn't, but he made a bunch of noise, therefore it's the same thing.

You are a fool. McCarthy never exposed any spies. He never accomplished anything to even suggest that there might actually be even one spy anywhere. McCarthy did nothing but make baseless accusations at people. He did not make these accusations because he thought that said people were spies. He did so for the sake of furthering is political ambitions. For all McCarthy knew, the entirety of the US government might have been a giant cast of television actors with McCarthy the unwitting central star of his own version of the Truman Show. It would not have mattered.

 

[PoliticalChic]

.....

You clearly state in the OP that McCarthy revealed the spies in the Roosevelt Administration. Now you say that he didn't, but he made a bunch of noise, therefore it's the same thing.

You are a fool. McCarthy never exposed any spies. He never accomplished anything to even suggest that there might actually be even one spy anywhere. McCarthy did nothing but make baseless accusations at people. He did not make these accusations because he thought that said people were spies. He did so for the sake of furthering is political ambitions. For all McCarthy knew, the entirety of the US government might have been a giant cast of television actors with McCarthy the unwitting central star of his own version of the Truman Show. It would not have mattered.

"McCarthy did nothing but make baseless accusations at people."


Name one.

 

[PoliticalChic]

.....

You clearly state in the OP that McCarthy revealed the spies in the Roosevelt Administration. Now you say that he didn't, but he made a bunch of noise, therefore it's the same thing.

You are a fool. McCarthy never exposed any spies. He never accomplished anything to even suggest that there might actually be even one spy anywhere. McCarthy did nothing but make baseless accusations at people. He did not make these accusations because he thought that said people were spies. He did so for the sake of furthering is political ambitions. For all McCarthy knew, the entirety of the US government might have been a giant cast of television actors with McCarthy the unwitting central star of his own version of the Truman Show. It would not have mattered.

"You clearly state in the OP that McCarthy revealed the spies in the Roosevelt Administration."
No, I didn't.

Once again, reading is your problem.



This is what the OP said:

"The following is a series of statements which our Liberal pals fervently believe to be true...
Senator Joseph McCarty committed a crime of greater magnitude by revealing the Soviet spies in the Roosevelt government, than that of the spies themselves."


Bet you're feeling pretty stupid right now.....or is that your usual feeling?


So....I guess we can see who the fool is, huh?


Welcome to Ouch-town, bro…Population: you

 

[Bloodrock44]

.....

You clearly state in the OP that McCarthy revealed the spies in the Roosevelt Administration. Now you say that he didn't, but he made a bunch of noise, therefore it's the same thing.

You are a fool. McCarthy never exposed any spies. He never accomplished anything to even suggest that there might actually be even one spy anywhere. McCarthy did nothing but make baseless accusations at people. He did not make these accusations because he thought that said people were spies. He did so for the sake of furthering is political ambitions. For all McCarthy knew, the entirety of the US government might have been a giant cast of television actors with McCarthy the unwitting central star of his own version of the Truman Show. It would not have mattered.

Negged! Watch who you're calling a fool, fool.

 

[SwimExpert]

Negged! Watch who you're calling a fool, fool.

 

[Erand7899]

Those who argue there is no separation of church and state mandate have an agenda. Things like school prayer. And then you find case law has decidely come down against them.

This is the inconvenient truth behind the word playing.

Observe as case law is now derided for banning school prayer, even though case law was demanded to support opposition to the opening premise.

2a. Studying case law, the decisions of courts, is the only way to apply the Constitution.

Indeed! That is why school prayer is banned. Case law separating church and state.

There is no case law that justifies the supreme courts finding that the constitution requires separation of church and state. The actions of the people who wrote and adopted the constitution belies any such understanding. The utter stupidity of that decision has been obvious in the mischief that is still being done in the name of that decision.

 

[JoeB131]

Holodomor > holocaust

Holodomor being the result of secular humanists punishing peasants for rejecting their noble collectivism.

Or that after the country had been devestated by several wars they just had some shitty famines.

Nope, the holodomor was secular humanists punishing christians for not being collectivists.

Another recent example of secular humanist government slaughtering christians is north korea's recent execution of people for simply having a bible.

Actually, you read the bible, the early Christians were collectivists. In fact, Peter struck a couple dead for keeping the proceeds of selling their own property.

From the Book of Acts

5:1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
5:2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.
5:3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
5:4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
5:5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.
5:6 And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.
5:7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.
5:8 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.
5:9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.
5:10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.
5:11 And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.

Kind of hard for the Christians to plead innocent with that. Betcha they don't read that to you in Sunday School.

 

[itfitzme]

Surprising, isn't it, how very different the views of Liberals and conservatives are.
The following is a series of statements which our Liberal pals fervently believe to be true.....at least they subscribe to the majority of them.



So...here's a quick check to see if...or make sure.... you've fallen into the abyss of Liberalism:



True or False:


1. The "1%" is made up of millionaires and billionaires who stole their wealth from the 99%.


2. The Constitution mandates separation of church and state.

2a. Studying case law, the decisions of courts, is the only way to apply the Constitution.


3. The laws of economics don't apply to healthcare: the government can provide healthcare for all, and of higher quality than presently available, and at a considerable savings!


4. While Democrat Party was the source and wellspring of racism up until 1964, the parties switched attitudes that year, and the Republicans became the racists.



5. Senator Joseph McCarty committed a crime of greater magnitude by revealing the Soviet spies in the Roosevelt government, than that of the spies themselves.


6. Religion has been responsible for the deaths of more human beings than non-religion!


7. Bush was responsible for the Mortgage Meltdown.

7a. Gore won.


8. Rights are only those entitlements allowed by governments....and can be withdrawn by same.


9. Gorbachev was as responsible for ending the Cold War as President Reagan was.


10. It's a racist nation, and that's the reason for criticism of Obama.


Bonus question: The United States was founded based on the Enlightenment, and, therefore, is not based on Judeo-Christian values.





Ready?
OK.....let's mark your paper.....and no erasing and no crossing out!

Correct answers: all of 'em are absolutely, positively, "false."

How'd ya' do?
Liberal or conservative?
....but, you knew that already, didn't you.

More meaningless and unsupportable confirmation bias. Make a list of unsupported personal opinions, create an "enemy", then assert that your "enemy" opposes all your unsupported personal opinions.