Discussion with a Liberal — Part 2

Wow, a lot of food for thought, and not something I have time to address all at once.

Yeah, I’m aware of the pitfalls of the Internet. As I said, I write for a blog, so I also visit other blogs and opinion sites, both Left and Right (Huffington Post and National Review, for example). I just use opinion sites to gauge what other people are saying. It’s not often I link to such sites to make a point unless it’s to highlight an interesting point that someone else has made.  Sites like Truth or Fiction, FactCheck.org and Snopes are fine for debunking erroneous information, but when I’m looking for the truth about something (the absolute truth, not someones version of it) I try to find original writings and original audio or video, both of which are not difficult to find if you know where and how to look.

There was a concerted effort on the part of Progressives beginning in the 30’s to re-write a lot of history, particularly political history, a largely underground movement originating with a handful of foundations (Carnegie, Ford, Rockefeller, etc.) I used to have an excellent hour and a half video interview archived with a prominent statesman who was recruited back in the 30’s to be an integral part of the effort, but I can’t seem to find it. That was a couple computers back. The interview was done in the early 80’s, and the gentleman died shortly after the interview. Fascinating stuff — if I find it, I’ll forward a link, as it explains a lot. Anyway, history continues to be distorted to advance political goals. If you’ve looked at an elementary or high school history book lately, you know what I mean. But the distortion today has gone way beyond re-writing history to blatant efforts by the likes of a major network like NBC editing audio, video and 911 calls to advance an agenda or make someone look bad — or keep someone from looking bad.

WRT the Constitution, I hold the entire document, including the 27 amendments, inviolate. The amendments aren’t footnotes, they’re permanent changes to the document to reflect changing times.  The entire document forms the rules by which we govern ourselves, or at least that was the original plan. The rules are either rigid, but with a formal means of amendment or we have no rule of law. America has been the greatest experiment in self-government in the history of the planet, but, beginning a century ago, when original interpretation gave way to case law and precedent, the whole thing began to go off the rails, to the point that, today a large portion of what the federal government does is not constitutional according to original intent. Now, that said, the evolution of the Constitution during the Progressive era is so much toothpaste that can’t be put back in the tube, although, theoretically, I guess, it’s possible for case law and precedent to swing the pendulum back the other way. It’s probably not going to happen absent some kind of societal upheaval or economic collapse, and many people smarter than I am think we are getting very close to just such an event. Although I agree with the building consensus among many economists and historians that an economic collapse is more likely than an insurrection, it’s not something I obsess about, as it’s totally beyond my control, and I learned a long time ago not to dwell on things beyond my control — just be the best I can be on any given day, treat others as I’d like to be treated, hope that I don’t screw up too often, and when I do, learn from it so I don’t make the same mistake again.

Today’s politicians simply ignore the Constitution most of the time — several have even admitted as much publicly. I don’t consider myself a constitutional scholar by any stretch of the imagination either, but I have put in a lot of study, attended a 2-day constitutional workshop sponsored by the Indiana Constitution Society in Indianapolis a couple years ago, and I’ve collaborated on several blog articles on different aspects of the Constitution. I have lots of Constitution-related resources archived, including a fully searchable file of the Federalist Papers, as well as the writings of Blackstone and Vatel. If you’re interested in understanding and learning more about the Constitution, the Federalist Papers are an excellent resource, because they explain, in the Founders own words, the rationale behind why the Constitution says what it says — a sort of reading between the lines of the Constitution, if you will. The original Federalist Papers are pretty heavy reading, but they were compiled into a book re-written in modern English a year or two ago. Once I’m retired (hopefully soon) I’m thinking of taking the free constitutional courses (101 & 102) offered by Hillsdale College on-line. Several of the people in my email forum have taken them, and have given them glowing reviews.

In college I had a major in Business Administration with a minor in Economics, and only an hour or two short of a dual minor in history, so this stuff has always fascinated me. I have always (well, for at least the last 20 years or so) attempted to have informed opinions. I think if everyone took that attitude, the world would be a whole lot better place. Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, and, as you noted, some opinions stink. A good, historical example of informed vs. uninformed would be: “Washington was not a religious man” (uninformed opinion based on what someone else has written about Washington). “Washington prayed to and referenced God regularly, both publicly and privately.” (informed opinion, backed up by Washington’s own words and writings).

More of my response in Part 3

Advertisements

76 thoughts on “Discussion with a Liberal — Part 2

  1. mitchethekid March 9, 2013 / 10:28 pm

    This is a great topic for discussion and I congratulate Retired Spook for posting it. I wish I had more time to elaborate, but I want to point out a few things. One, the title objectifies anyone or any idea that is liberal. The words “a liberal” in the title convey; to me at least, a visual of someone examining some “thing” under a microscope held by a pair of tweezers.
    Contemporary conservatives are on the one hand for smaller government. Which is good, but the insistence of an inclusion of the conviction that abortion is murder, that gays shouldn’t be allowed by law to marry and many other morality based issues have no place at the table, so to speak, of a smaller, less intrusive government.
    For all the yrs that I have been posting here, there has not been one time that your ideas were not defended by impugning my character, my intelligence or my grasp of issues. This is a deflection.
    As far as credibility to “your side”, until you reject the birthersim and the ebonics of a certain uninformed poster here, you will get no quarter from me. Or any other progressive liberal (or conservative for that matter). The reptilian mindset of conservatives in general, as portrayed in the public sphere, do not benefit from such ignorant histrionics.
    I wish I could continue but duty calls.

    • Amazona March 9, 2013 / 10:41 pm

      mitche, as usual you can’t post unless you misstate what others say and believe.

      No one says “… gays shouldn’t be allowed by law to marry ..” On the contrary. gay people should be allowed to marry if they choose. My mother in law married a gay man when she was in her 60s and had a lovely, if unconventional, marriage.

      What we say is that a union of two people of the same sex is not marriage and that while it should be respected, and have the same legal protections as marriage, it really needs a different name as marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

      The taking of a human life for anything but punishment for a capital crime is murder. If a woman disposes of another human being because its existence bothers her or causes some inconvenience, that is murder—-unless a female disposes of another human being that is within a certain age range. You try to split hairs by saying that killing a human at most ages is murder but at some ages is just fine. But the assignment of the value of human life according to age is just as wrong as old decisions based on race or gender.

      If you would pay attention, or be honest, you would realize that most of us find social issues to be state and/or local issues. They are not part of the enumerated duties of the Constitution. Therefore, it is quite consistent to believe that abortion is murder and should be outlawed and also believe in smaller federal government, as issues such as abortion and the naming of gay unions are not within the purview of the federal government.

      You seldom offer “ideas” but merely attack the ideas of others, often in scathing terms. Your rudeness is evident and has called down criticism of your manners and, yes, your intellect.

      On the other hand, you have often been invited to explain and defend your political philosophy, your beliefs as to how the nation should be governed, and duck this and instead hide behind “issues” such as your beloved abortion and your beloved gay “marriage”.

      If you want to talk politics, you are welcome. But you only come here to attack what you seem to think is “conservatism” though you constantly make it clear you understand this political model as poorly as you do your own.

      • valeridubov March 10, 2013 / 10:21 am

        So as a transgender person Amazona I have no right to marry?

      • Cluster March 10, 2013 / 10:44 am

        Of course you have the right to marry. Find someone of the opposite sex whom you love and have a beautiful life.

      • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) March 10, 2013 / 11:16 am

        So as a transgender person Amazona I have no right to marry?

        Who or what would you like to have the right to marry?

      • Amazona March 10, 2013 / 12:02 pm

        val, et al: If you are truly transgendered, if you have completed the physical transformation necessary, then are are legally a man (if that’s the direction you went in) and can marry a woman. If you went the other way, and have completed the physical transformation from male to female, you can then marry a man. When you are legally and physically one gender you can marry someone of the opposite gender. What is so hard to understand about that?

        Doesn’t “transgendered” MEAN transiting from one gender to another? Are you now saying it is the same as homosexuality?

        You people need to get your terms straight.

        Ooops, sorry—-didn’t mean to insult with that “straight” reference.

      • neocon01 March 10, 2013 / 2:45 pm

        veldooboy

        So as a transgender person Amazona I have no right to marry?

        you are a sick puppy…..certain outward mutilated equipment does not change what you are your DNA. chromosomes, genes. decide that…you can sew feet on a fish and tell some one he is your dog but it still is a fish. You should be in a padded room in a straight jacket not worrying about “MARRYING” some one.

    • M. Noonan March 9, 2013 / 11:28 pm

      Of the many things liberals do which irk me, one of the main is their insistence that we cannot legislate morality. All law is an enforcement of morality – the only question is what morality we’ll enforce, and how. We have decreed it immoral to murder, and so we have laws against murder. We have also decreed it immoral to allow the poor to fend for themselves, and so we have welfare laws. The liberal complaint is really no more than, “I don’t want that bit of morality to be enforced”. My answer is: nothing doing. Its just as immoral for a gay man to marry as it is to allow a poor man to starve.

    • tiredoflibbs March 10, 2013 / 6:32 am

      mitchie: “Contemporary conservatives are on the one hand for smaller government. Which is good, but the insistence of an inclusion of the conviction that abortion is murder, that gays shouldn’t be allowed by law to marry and many other morality based issues have no place at the table, so to speak, of a smaller, less intrusive government.”

      Uh, mitchie, if you were more worried about comprehending the written word rather than whining and attacking, you would have noticed that we keep pushing for these issues to be decided BY THE PEOPLE AT THE STATE LEVEL as it is supposed to be as written in the 10th Amendment to the Bill of Rights. The mechanism for these issues were decided and provided over 200 years ago by men much smarter than you.

      But sadly, you have failed again.

      “For all the yrs that I have been posting here, there has not been one time that your ideas were not defended by impugning my character, my intelligence or my grasp of issues. This is a deflection.”

      You made it too easy, mitchie. Your constant whining and regurgitation of leftist dumbed down talking points made you a target. If you had taken the time to gather information for yourself and post an intelligent comment close to the one above. Had you read our accurate posts and verifiable facts rather than resort to your typical drone behavior and raw emotion when you could not get your way, you would not have brought criticisms upon yourself. You ignore facts presented. You regurgitate mindless talking points. As I said before, give us something intelligent and accurate to work with, rather than the mindlessness you present.

      Learn from your mistakes and don’t perpetuate them, ad infinitum.

      • Retired Spook March 10, 2013 / 9:08 am

        The mechanism for these issues were decided and provided over 200 years ago by men much smarter than you.

        Tired, that’s one of the main problems we face today: many on the Left, and in particular their elitist leaders, believe they’re MUCH smarter than the men who founded our republic. Never mind that what the Founders gave us resulted in the most free and prosperous nation in the history of the planet in an incredibly short period of time while Leftist principles have not only not worked, they have, when carried to their extreme, resulted in a trail of tens of millions of dead bodies and mass graves.

      • Amazona March 10, 2013 / 10:20 am

        Not only do the Left spend much of their time congratulating themselves on what they see as their inherent moral and intellectual superiority, they do so while being abjectly ignorant of our own governing precepts.

        They truly do not know that the Constitution severely restricts the size, scope and power of the federal government to only 17 enumerated duties. Duties—that is, what the federal government is REQUIRED to do.

        They truly do not understand that anything that is not included in these delegated responsibilities of the federal government is up to local and state governments, or for the People to do themselves.

        When this is pointed out to them, as we do so often here, they just ignore us and then come back in a day or a week or a month with the same ignorant bleatings we corrected the last time we saw them. This is why I, at least, have come to the conclusion that they are not just willfully ignorant, they are inherently dishonest, because their posts are so indifferent to fact and truth, and so dependent on their pathological need to try to savage people who do understand and believe in the rule of law as set forth in the Constitution.

        They are not motivated by political belief, but by their sad desperate need to exhibit their hatred, hostility, and savagery–but safely, from their computers.

      • valeridubov March 10, 2013 / 10:30 am

        “Uh, mitchie, if you were more worried about comprehending the written word rather than whining and attacking, you would have noticed that we keep pushing for these issues to be decided BY THE PEOPLE AT THE STATE LEVEL as it is supposed to be as written in the 10th Amendment to the Bill of Rights. The mechanism for these issues were decided and provided over 200 years ago by men much smarter than you.”

        Dahling, Conservatives lost this battle when they used States’ Rights to try to keep minorities in a state of second class citizenship in the mid 20th century. If you still had the numbers this would be one way to “take back your country” or better to take your country backward as I see it.

      • tiredoflibbs March 10, 2013 / 10:39 am

        val the forker: “Dahling, Conservatives lost this battle when they used States’ Rights to try to keep minorities in a state of second class citizenship in the mid 20th century. If you still had the numbers this would be one way to “take back your country” or better to take your country backward as I see it.”

        Oh, you mean when the old white Democrats of the south, like Senator Robert “KKK” Byrd himself among others Albright, Gore Sr, etc., who imposed and kept Jim Crowe laws enforced? The same old white Democrats that wanted to keep the Civil Rights Act from becoming law, which caused Martin Luther King to be a Republican?

        They were far from Conservative. I am disappointed to see another forker who is just a mindless drone regurgitating the same old inaccurate dumbed down talking points as the rest of the proggy imbeciles at the pitchfork.

        Pathetic.

      • Cluster March 10, 2013 / 10:46 am

        Dahling, it was a republican who freed the slaves, and it was the Dixie democrats who fought against the civil rights.

      • Amazona March 10, 2013 / 11:48 am

        val, tell us—will THIS Lefty persona actually engage in political discourse, or are you planning to just continue the pattern established by your Fellow Travelers and drop in here to deposit snide little comments attempting to dismiss or demean what we say without offering anything of your own?

        Sooooo tiresome, dahling. You really MUST get some new material. Yours is so outdated, so oft-rebutted, so worn out from constantly being dragged out and presented with a flourish by someone either ignorant of its fatal flaws or indifferent to them, because no matter how rancid they are they still taste good to you.

        As for moving “backward”, dahling, nothing is as amusing as the posturing of political illiterates such as yourself preening over your claim to the term “progressive” while you struggle to drag this nation backward into the regressive, always-failed, Leftist political model.

        We have often noted, dahling, the reluctance (OK, let’s face it—REFUSAL) of you Lefties to explain and defend the political system you support by attacking those who oppose it.

        Note that I very carefully did not say you attack the SYSTEM. You don’t, you can’t. That would require a foray into actual political discourse, which is alien territory to such as you. Way too intellectual and fact-based for you carrion eaters who prefer to roll around in the decayed remnants of old talking points such as the Lefty revision of the Civil Rights battle……

        …..dahling…….

      • Amazona March 10, 2013 / 11:53 am

        DAHLING, will you please explain why States’ Rights (otherwise known as the will of the people) should be subservient to the federal government, with the final say being handed down by five unelected political appointees?

        What’s the matter? Five too many? Ah for the days of a single Dear Leader!

      • neocon01 March 10, 2013 / 2:48 pm

        tired

        these Klowns cant tell an exit from an entrance and they somehow think they can understand the constitution?

        Riiiiiight pee wee!!

    • Retired Spook March 10, 2013 / 9:01 am

      Mitche,

      Your propensity to come here and tell us what Conservatives think has worn more than a little thin. How about sometime you tell us what you think? That was the main purpose of this 3-part piece.

      • Amazona March 10, 2013 / 10:00 am

        It’s not just mitche. crusty rusty brown is another Lib whose pathology drives him to troll the internet to look for blogs where he can indulge in his irrational loathing of strangers just because they self-identify as “conservatives”.

        And, like mitche, he doesn’t address political ideas or models, or discuss forms of government, but focuses on “issues”—because that is the only thing people like him understand.

        Get into actual political discourse and they are lost, either ignorant or indifferent or both. No, they are seeking to exhibit their innate bigotry. They have been suckered into an irrational hatred of strangers by a political movement which is based on demonizing and savaging others for having different opinions, because this is a movement that cannot prevail in the arena of political thought and has to depend on bullying.

        Which, of course, is its main attraction to such as mitche and crusty, who apparently aspire to be bullies but have to do it anonymously, at a distance. Safe from any repercussions of their bigotry, they can indulge in typical Leftist tactics, such as reframing what other people say so they can sneer at it or attack it.

        They are cowards, especially shown in their fear of examining the brutal reality of the system they support, choosing instead to stay where they are most comfortable—the arena of sniping, snarling, petty attacks and wallowing in their own bile.

  2. M. Noonan March 9, 2013 / 11:30 pm

    History certainly has gone in for a re-write – for instance, Joe McCarthy in almost all history books you can find is a man who is charged with falsely accusing people of being communists. The truth is, now that all the facts are out, that he very correctly identified communists – and the double oddity is that the false accusation against McCarthy has become indisputable in polite society. Heck, even conservatives use “McCarthyism” as a pejorative. And this is just one in a thousand cases.

    • Amazona March 10, 2013 / 10:10 am

      Mark, I too was surprised at the truth about Joe McCarthy when I started to learn more about him. And I am disgusted when conservatives (whether genuine conservatives or just GOP figures) toss around the term “McCarthyism” as if it means something awful.

      We could use a little McCarthyism in our nation right now. We could use someone who would stand up and point out the communists and maoists and radical Islamists in the heart of our government.

      Of course they would be met with the mealy-mouthed head-in-the-sanders who would bleat “But….but….but….isn’t it PREJUDICE to suspect people just because of what they believe?”

      Yeah, I guess it is—if by “PREJUDICE” you mean identifying people whose goals are to destroy your basic form of government and replace it with an always-failed, inherently brutal, substitute which oppresses the masses to enrich the ruling elite while piously mouthing platitudes about “fairness” and “the working man”, etc. If by “PREJUDICE” you mean noticing that people whose political model clearly states that all who do not agree must die are now near the seat of our government, in positions of power and knowledge.

      • valeridubov March 10, 2013 / 10:35 am

        “We could use a little McCarthyism in our nation right now. We could use someone who would stand up and point out the communists and maoists and radical Islamists in the heart of our government.”

        Amazona, my dear, you have far more to worry about from hedge fund managers, corporate lawyers and marketing executives than you have from any of those groups you mentioned.

      • Cluster March 10, 2013 / 10:50 am

        Amazona, my dear, you have far more to worry about from hedge fund managers, corporate lawyers and marketing executives than you have from any of those groups you mentioned.

        Why is that Val? If your beloved government was doing its job, there are anti trust laws and SEC laws that can, and should be enforced, meaning you shouldn’t have anything to worry about from those evil folks. As it is, you’re too stupid to realize that your vaunted, large federal government is a huge part of the problem.

      • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) March 10, 2013 / 11:19 am

        Amazona, my dear, you have far more to worry about from hedge fund managers, corporate lawyers and marketing executives than you have from any of those groups you mentioned.

        To the extent that those people form the base of Obama’s financial support, I suppose you could be right.

      • Amazona March 10, 2013 / 11:37 am

        I forgot about the infamous Hedge Fund Posse announcing that anyone who does not invest with them must be killed. Thanks for reminding me, val. The Hedge Fund Jihad should not be overlooked.

        And those dreaded MARKETING EXECUTIVES!!! Oh me, oh my! Worse than lions and tigers and bears, no doubt! Stalking me and threatening to kill me, subvert my Constitution, turn my beloved nation into another failed Leftist Utopia in which the masses are oppressed while the Ruling Elite enjoy their dachas and other privileges!

        (The only Marketing Executive I know is middle-aged, pudgy, pasty, balding, and the closest thing to a weapon he has ever held is a poorly handled 3-iron. A brilliant disguise? Does he wear camos and wield a (gasp!!) ASSAULT RIFLE when I am not looking? Or is he a danger to me because he wants me to change my toothpaste brand?)

        Thank you so much for pointing out these heretofore unrecognized threats.

        Just curious—was it “corporate lawyers” who advertised a bounty on the life of an uncharged, untried, unconvicted man in Florida just because of the color of his skin?

        Do keep us posted, dearest val, on the dangers we seem to be overlooking while we are distracted by the assaults on our rule of law, our freedoms and our property. You seem to spend a lot of time sniffing around looking for scary villains to fear—do update us as you find them.

        Just curious—do you see a threat in the government purchase of billions of hollow-point (banned by the U.N.) bullets? Or covert surveillance of American citizens, without warrants, by photo drones, infrared cameras, etc? How about a “civilian security force” as well armed and funded as the military, but controlled by the Executive Branch?

      • neocon01 March 10, 2013 / 2:52 pm

        but controlled by the Executive Branch?

        more likely the nation of islam and the black panthers with this illegal regime.

      • rustybrown2012 March 10, 2013 / 4:19 pm

        Ama says:
        We could use a little McCarthyism in our nation right now. We could use someone who would stand up and point out the communists and maoists and radical Islamists in the heart of our government.”

        …that’s rich! Pray tell, can the fearless ama be the first to name names? Are ya havin trouble? Is it because they don’t exist?

        And then just what do we do when these people have been “pointed out” for thinking differently from you or even (gasp) holding a different political ideology from you? Surely they shouldn’t be sanctioned in any way for thought crimes; this is America by gum and last I checked people are free to believe whatever they want. But then why “point them out” in the first place. Hmmm. Strange.

      • rustybrown2012 March 11, 2013 / 2:14 am

        Aw, come on ama,
        Still no signals to lead the charge against MAOISTS crashing our gates!? THE PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW. You lit the fuse, now blow those embers to their destination…

      • rustybrown2012 March 11, 2013 / 2:19 am

        Seems like ama’s tongue is a bit tied…

    • rustybrown2012 March 10, 2013 / 4:38 pm

      You’re attempting a re-write. McCarthy undisputedly “falsely accused people of being communists”. And yes, he did correctly identify some communists, but that does not excuse his reckless and anti-American overreaching prosecutions that destroyed many innocent lives.

      • neocon01 March 10, 2013 / 4:40 pm

        rbrownshorts

        REALLY? so Bobby Kennedy was part of that lie and conspiracy as well??
        Who Knew…….

      • neocon01 March 10, 2013 / 4:42 pm

        Trinity United Church of Christ adopted the Black Value System written by the Manford Byrd Recognition Committee chaired by Vallmer Jordan in 1981. We believe in the following 12 precepts and covenantal statements.
        These Black Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Blacks are gathered. They must reflect on the following concepts:

        1. Commitment to God
        2. Commitment to the Black Community
        3. Commitment to the Black Family
        4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
        5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
        6. Adherence to the Black Work Ethic
        7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
        8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness”
        9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black Community
        10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions
        11. Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System
        12. Personal commitment to embracement of the Black Value System.

      • neocon01 March 10, 2013 / 4:45 pm

        ahem

        In 1953, Bobby enlisted in McCarthy’s crusade against what both men saw as the evil of communism in America.

        Robert Dallek: Robert Kennedy in the 1950’s was very much his father’s son. His father was fiercely anti-communist. Joe Kennedy saw Joe McCarthy as doing the Lord’s work.

        Evan Thomas: History thinks of Joe McCarthy as this virulent Redbaiter, but Bobby Kennedy was a black-and-white moralist at this stage of his life. And the Communists were the bad guys, and anybody who was against the Communists was therefore a good guy and so he liked the kind of black-and-white morality that Joe McCarthy was selling.

        Ronald Steel, Historian: What was striking about Bobby was not that he worked for Joe McCarthy so much, but rather that he admired Joe McCarthy, and became very close to Joe. So when McCarthy was conducting his investigations into suspected Communists, Bobby enthusiastically joined in this role.

      • neocon01 March 10, 2013 / 4:50 pm

        Rbrownshorts

        that destroyed many innocent lives.

        NAME THEM!!

      • M. Noonan March 10, 2013 / 9:40 pm

        Rusty,

        I’m with Neo – name for me one person accused of being a communist by McCarthy who turned out upon investigation to not be a communist.

        You’re problem here is going to come in several forms – first off, the list McCarthy had wasn’t made up by McCarthy: it was made up by the various intelligence agencies of the United States government. Secondly, there wasn’t a wide divergence in the number of people on the list – there were simply two slightly different lists. Third, McCarthy didn’t want to “name names” in public because he know that just getting on the list didn’t prove anything – it was Democrats who insisted that the names be revealed in public.

        Plenty of people on the list have been proven to have been agents of the Soviet government. All told, the Soviet penetration of the United States government as well as non-governmental institutions starting in the 1930’s was massive. McCarthy never said that everyone on the list was a for-sure communist agent, but that various agencies of government has discovered questionable activities and that the Administration was covering it up…often allowing them to quietly resign and then get jobs elsewhere in the United States.

        McCarthy was right – his critics were wrong. And here’s the thing – McCarthy was a dyed-in-the-wool Progressive Republican. He’d be considered a RINO today. His basic policy views were in line with New Deal big government…but he committed one, egregious and unforgivable – by the left – sin: he exposed traitors. The left hates him because of this.

      • rustybrown2012 March 11, 2013 / 2:33 am

        Mark,
        A response to your first question,

        “name for me one person accused of being a communist by McCarthy who turned out upon investigation to not be a communist.”

        …via Wikipedia:
        Victims of McCarthyism
        It is difficult to estimate the number of victims of McCarthyism. The number imprisoned is in the hundreds, and some ten or twelve thousand lost their jobs.[46] In many cases simply being subpoenaed by HUAC or one of the other committees was sufficient cause to be fired.[47] Many of those who were imprisoned, lost their jobs or were questioned by committees did in fact have a past or present connection of some kind with the Communist Party. But for the vast majority, both the potential for them to do harm to the nation and the nature of their communist affiliation were tenuous.[48] Suspected homosexuality was also a common cause for being targeted by McCarthyism. The hunt for “sexual perverts”, who were presumed to be subversive by nature, resulted in thousands being harassed and denied employment.[49]
        In the film industry, over 300 actors, authors and directors were denied work in the U.S. through the unofficial Hollywood blacklist. Blacklists were at work throughout the entertainment industry, in universities and schools at all levels, in the legal profession, and in many other fields. A port security program initiated by the Coast Guard shortly after the start of the Korean War required a review of every maritime worker who loaded or worked aboard any American ship, regardless of cargo or destination. As with other loyalty-security reviews of McCarthyism, the identities of any accusers and even the nature of any accusations were typically kept secret from the accused. Nearly 3,000 seamen and longshoremen lost their jobs due to this program alone.[50]
        A few of the more notable people who were blacklisted or suffered some other persecution during McCarthyism are listed here:
        Nelson Algren, writer[51]
        Elmer Bernstein, composer and conductor[52]
        David Bohm, physicist and philosopher[53]
        Bertolt Brecht, poet, playwright, screenwriter
        Charlie Chaplin, actor and director[54]
        Aaron Copland, composer[55]
        Bartley Crum, attorney[56]
        Howard Da Silva, actor[57]
        Jules Dassin, director[58]
        Dolores del Río, actress[59]
        W. E. B. Du Bois, civil rights activist and author[60]
        Howard Fast, writer[61]
        Carl Foreman, writer of High Noon
        John Garfield, actor[55]
        Jack Gilford, actor[57]
        Ruth Gordon, actress[57]
        Lee Grant, actress[62]
        Dashiell Hammett, author[55]
        Elizabeth Hawes, clothing designer, author, equal rights activist[63]
        Lillian Hellman, playwright[55]
        Lena Horne, singer [57]
        Langston Hughes, writer[55]
        Sam Jaffe, actor[55]
        Theodore Kaghan, diplomat[64]
        Garson Kanin, writer and director[55]
        Benjamin Keen, historian[65]
        Gypsy Rose Lee, actress and stripper[55]
        Cornelius Lanczos, mathematician and physicist[66]
        Arthur Laurents, playwright[57]
        Philip Loeb, actor[67]
        Joseph Losey, director[55]
        Burgess Meredith, actor[55]
        Arthur Miller, playwright and essayist[55]
        Zero Mostel, actor[55]
        J. Robert Oppenheimer, physicist, scientific director of the Manhattan Project[68]
        Dorothy Parker, writer[55]
        Linus Pauling, chemist, winner of two Nobel prizes[69]
        Samuel Reber, diplomat[70]
        Martin Ritt, actor and director[71]
        Paul Robeson, actor, athlete, singer, writer, political activist[72]
        Edward G. Robinson, actor[55]
        Waldo Salt, screenwriter[73]
        Pete Seeger, folk singer[55]
        Artie Shaw, jazz musician[55]
        Irwin Shaw, writer[57]
        William L. Shirer, journalist[74]
        Lionel Stander, actor[75]
        Paul Sweezy, economist and founder-editor of Monthly Review[76]
        Charles W. Thayer, diplomat[77]
        Tsien Hsue-shen, physicist[78]
        Gene Weltfish, Anthropologist. Fired from her position at Columbia in 1953 and unable to secure a new position for the next 9 years.[79]
        In 1953, Robert K. Murray, a young professor of history at Pennsylvania State University who had served as an intelligence officer in World War II, was revising his dissertation on the Red Scare of 1919-1920 for publication until Little, Brown and Company decided that “under the circumstances…it wasn’t wise for them to bring this book out.” He learned that investigators were questioning his colleagues and relatives. The University of Minnesota press published his volume, Red Scare: A Study in National Hysteria, 1919-1920, in 1955.[80]

      • neocon01 March 11, 2013 / 9:03 am

        LOST THEIR JOBS…..OOH the HORROR!!!!

        and that was McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy’s fault?
        only in peanut ville of a leftist “mind”

      • The Return of Rathaven March 11, 2013 / 12:59 pm

        The HOUSE Un-American Activities Committee?

        Name ONE person McCarthy falsely accused or being a communist within the government and you list communists named by the HOUSE or Representatives Committee?

        McCarthy was in the Senate Bone head.

      • rustybrown2012 March 11, 2013 / 5:28 pm

        Rat,
        The text refers to “HUAC or one of the other committees“. Gee, in this article on McCarthyism, you think they might be referring to the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations which McCarthy chaired and from which he conducted his witch-hunt? Simpleton.

      • The Return of Rathaven March 11, 2013 / 6:20 pm

        Then name one.

        Name for me one person accused of being a communist by McCarthy who turned out upon investigation to not be a communist.

      • percybeezer March 11, 2013 / 6:48 pm

        I checked the list; only 5 people were on both the Senate and House witness list. The ones that testified before McCarthy were all communists (by their own admission) at one time.

        Lists and testimony are available at Senate.gov

        pwned again! Do you ever get tired of looking so lame rusty?

      • rustybrown2012 March 11, 2013 / 9:50 pm

        “Then name one.
        Name for me one person accused of being a communist by McCarthy who turned out upon investigation to not be a communist.”

        From Wikipedia (not that hard to find):
        “During the hearings, McCarthy moved on from his original unnamed Lee list cases and used the hearings to make charges against nine specific people: Dorothy Kenyon, Esther Brunauer, Haldore Hanson, Gustavo Durán, Owen Lattimore, Harlow Shapley, Frederick Schuman, John S. Service, and Philip Jessup. Some of them no longer worked for the State Department, or never had; all had previously been the subject of charges of varying worth and validity. Owen Lattimore became a particular focus of McCarthy’s, who at one point described him as a “top Russian spy”. Throughout the hearings, McCarthy employed colorful rhetoric, but produced no substantial evidence, to support his accusations.”

        Percy,
        You should provide direct links for your claims. Not that I don’t trust ya or nothin’, but based on your opinions and writing, I’m not convinced of your research skills.

      • tiredoflibbs March 11, 2013 / 10:51 pm

        Hmmmm…. concerning “Dorothy Kenyon, Esther Brunauer, Haldore Hanson, Gustavo Durán, Owen Lattimore, Harlow Shapley, Frederick Schuman, John S. Service, and Philip Jessup”…

        What do you suppose: “all had previously been the subject of charges of varying worth and validity” means? We know crusty has a massive reading comprehension problem. Crusty has yet to prove that these people were innocent. He cites wikipedia and other “progressive” sites and they are dubious sources at best.

        His citing “victims of McCarthyism” is really a piece about the “movement” that was named after him. His list was a result of the HOUSE investigation and not those of McCarthy himself. As shown below, SENATOR McCarthy directly questioned 46 persons – a far cry from the THOUSANDS that are claimed in the wikipedia hit piece.

        Well:

        Five years before McCarthy mentioned the name of John Stewart Service, Service was arrested for giving classified documents to the editors of Amerasia, a communist magazine. The Truman Administration, however, managed to cover up the espionage scandal and Service was never punished for his crime. McCarthy also produced considerable evidence that Service had been “part of the pro-Soviet group” that wanted to bring communism to China, but the Tydings Committee (a Democrat committee set up to investigate security at the State Department – but just concentrated on discrediting McCarthy) said that Service was “not disloyal, pro-communist, or a security risk.” Over the next 18 months, the State Department’s Loyalty Security Board cleared Service four more times, but finally, in December 1951, the Civil Service Commission Loyalty Review Board found that there was “reasonable doubt” as to his loyalty and ousted him from the State Department.

        As for Philip Jessup, all that Joe McCarthy said was that he had an “unusual affinity for communist causes.” The record shows that Jessup belonged to at least five communist-controlled fronts, that he associated closely with communists, and that he was an influential member of the Institute for Pacific Relations (IPR), which the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee (SISS) described in 1952 as “a vehicle used by Communists to orientate American Far Eastern policy toward Communist objectives.” The SISS also reported that 46 persons connected with the IPR while Jessup was a leading light there had been named under oath as members of the Communist Party.

        Owen Lattimore was one of the principal architects of the State Department’s pro-communist foreign policy in the Far East. In a closed session of the Tydings Committee, Senator McCarthy called Lattimore the “top Russian spy” in the department. (That charge, by the way, was leaked to the public not by McCarthy but by columnist Drew Pearson.) McCarthy later modified his statement on Lattimore, saying that “I may have perhaps placed too much stress on the question of whether or not he has been an espionage agent,” and went on to say that “13 different witnesses have testified under oath to Lattimore’s Communist membership or party-line activities.” Although the Tydings Committee cleared Lattimore of all charges, another Senate committee, the SISS, vindicated Joe McCarthy when it declared in 1952 that “Owen Lattimore was, from some time beginning in the 1930s, a conscious articulate instrument of the Soviet conspiracy.”

        It is a fact, wrote William F. Buckley and Brent Bozell in McCarthy and His Enemies, that from February 9, 1950 until January 1, 1953, Joe McCarthy publicly questioned the loyalty or reliability of a grand total of 46 persons, and particularly dramatized the cases of only 24 of the 46. We have discussed three of the senator’s major targets, and Buckley and Bozell pointed out that McCarthy “never said anything more damaging about Lauchlin Currie, Gustavo Duran, Theodore Geiger, Mary Jane Keeney, Edward Posniak, Haldore Hanson, and John Carter Vincent, than that they are known to one or more responsible persons as having been members of the Communist Party, which is in each of these instances true.”

        While McCarthy may have exaggerated the significance of the evidence against some other individuals, his record on the whole is extremely good. (This is also true of the 1953-54 period when he was chairman of a Senate committee and publicly exposed 114 persons, most of whom refused to answer questions about communist or espionage activities on the ground that their answers might tend to incriminate them.) There were no innocent victims of McCarthyism. Those whom McCarthy accused had indeed collaborated in varying degrees with communists, had shown no remorse for their actions, and thoroughly deserved whatever scorn was directed at them.

        Listing more than one source will put this post into the “Pending” list for approval. Here is one source of many, they are out there it is just a matter of being willing to look at them and not just “progressive” only sites.

        http://www.knology.net/~bilrum/mccarth2.htm

        These do indeed give meaning to “all had previously been the subject of charges of varying worth and validity”. Ol’ Crusty loves to cherrypick his “evidence” and from dubious sources as well. “Facts are stubborn things” too bad crusty has been shown to be afraid of the ALL the facts and in its COMPLETE context.

      • rustybrown2012 March 11, 2013 / 11:11 pm

        Tired says:

        “Crusty has yet to prove that these people were innocent.”

        …that’s your problem, clueless. We live in America, where people are innocent until proven guilty – ever heard of that? The burden of proof was on McCarthy, and he failed.

      • tiredoflibbs March 12, 2013 / 4:38 am

        Crusty, either you did not read the post or your problem with reading comprehension is in full bloom.

        I showed where these individuals had ties to Communism, which was the whole point of McCarthy’s hearings. Your only answer is an attack – typical for a mindless proggy drone.

      • tiredoflibbs March 12, 2013 / 5:29 am

        crusty: “…that’s your problem, clueless. We live in America, where people are innocent until proven guilty – ever heard of that? The burden of proof was on McCarthy, and he failed.”

        Let’s look at your previous post: “Some of them no longer worked for the State Department, or never had; all had previously been the subject of charges of varying worth and validity.”

        I did not have to prove them guilty, you already did! McCarthy only had to show that these people, who were in government and had access to sensitive and critical information, had ties to communism. He did.

        YOUR OWN POST SAYS: “…all had previously been the subject of charges of varying worth and validity.”

        Again, your reading comprehension fails you! The charges against them had VALIDITY!

        Crusty, next time have someone read what you “researched” (more like copy and pasted from a source that was not quite applicable) and have them explain it to you.

        That way you won’t look so foolish.

        I finished chasing you down this proggy rabbit hole. BTW, I did not use TheBlaze or Conservapedia.

        I USED YOUR OWN WORDS AGAINST YOU! Don’t you hate when that happens?

      • Amazona March 12, 2013 / 9:41 am

        Thank you, Rathaven. You beat me to the punch there.

        I kind of set that up, to lure a brainless lemming into a rant on the HUAC, as the list of elites discomforted by examination of their politics is always presented as an indictment of <b< SENATOR McCarthy.

        I don’t have time today to indulge crusty rusty brown by naming names—-I had one job, which was to build a new company, ended up taking over another job when a contractor crapped out so I am a construction supervisor on a building project, and then became deeply involved in the reorganization of our family company (I was just a silent partner/investor) when we reorganized a couple of weeks ago, suddenly becoming an officer and handling details of the shift of management. We’re buying an office building, changing the name of the company because it is too close to that of a competitor, etc. It keeps me busy. When that is accomplished I will settle down to a couple of days a week, I think, in my new role as an officer of the company, and then I might have time to get back to my other job—that of educating the politically illiterate.

        Move over, Sisyphus…………

        So crusty will have to look up his own references to the cadre of czars in Obama’s Inner Circle, their writings and pronouncements, etc. If he does this—–and I am sure he will not—he will find a NAMBLA supporter, a man who advocated the surreptitious sterilization of Americans to control unwanted populations, a Maoist, and so on.

      • Amazona March 12, 2013 / 9:48 am

        crusty bleats: ” We live in America, where people are innocent until proven guilty – ever heard of that?”

        He forgets to add the essential caveat of the Leftist mob——unless the accused is a white man in Florida accused of racially motivated violence against a black man, even when the evidence supports his claim of self defense.

        Get the Leftist mobs involved, and “innocent until proven guilty” flies out the window, to be replaced by a racist group publicly issuing a reward for killing a man who has not been been tried or convicted. Get the Leftist mobs involved and the Attorney General of the United States looks the other way because the group placing the bounty on this man’s head shares his racial identity. Get the Leftist mobs involved and the President of the United States throws gasoline on the fire by pronouncing that the attacker who was killed “might have been his son”.

        Get the Leftist mobs involved, and blogs like this are swamped with insane rants about the alleged guilt of the white man, and personal attacks on those who believe in the rule of law—that is, the same rule that crusty now finds convenient to rediscover, so he can piously intone “We live in America, where people are innocent until proven guilty – ever heard of that?”

      • Amazona March 12, 2013 / 9:56 am

        According to crusty and his ilk, any examination of the Left is nothing more than a “witch hunt”, no matter how important the issue or accurate the findings.

        Yet as part of the Leftist mob mentality, he seems to have no problem with real witch hunts, such as the hysterical screeching over who bought Sarah Palin’s campaign wardrobe or the passionate examination of Mitt Romney’s dog’s diarrhea.

      • rustybrown2012 March 12, 2013 / 6:44 pm

        Do you ever plan to add to or take part in a discussion or is your whole purpose just to attack what others say? Time to ante up or take a hike. //Moderator

      • rustybrown2012 March 12, 2013 / 6:54 pm

        Do you ever plan to add to or take part in a discussion or is your whole purpose just to attack what others say? Time to ante up or take a hike. //Moderator

  3. tiredoflibbs March 11, 2013 / 11:00 pm

    Notice crutsty searches McCarthyism – a term coined for a movement and not the actual Senator. He searches “victims of McCarthyism” from wikipedia, a dubious source.

    His other “proof” is from the Tydings committee. Its mandate was to conduct “a full and complete study and investigation as to whether persons who are disloyal to the United States are, or have been, employed by the Department of State.”

    It hardly did that job of investigating the State Department, its sole purpose was to discredit McCarthy. The chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Millard Tydings, a Democrat, set the tone for the hearings on the first day when he told McCarthy: “You are in the position of being the man who occasioned this hearing, and so far as I am concerned in this committee you are going to get one of the most complete investigations ever given in the history of this Republic, so far as my abilities will permit.”

    As I said before, crusty likes his extreme biased sources and cherrypicked “evidence”. He has not shown any reliable evidence and criticized others for their questionable research – while citing “Victims of McCarthyism” and Tydings subcommittee.

    pathetic.

    • rustybrown2012 March 11, 2013 / 11:17 pm

      Yeah, the open-sourced Wikipedia is an “extremely biased” and “dubious” source! Ya can’t make this stuff up! Yep, I suppose reality is biased to you, tired. What do you prefer, consrvipedia? The Blaze? What a maroon.

      • tiredoflibbs March 12, 2013 / 4:42 am

        It’s okay crusty. As I said, you just need to look at more reliable sources, rather than those from the proggy echo-chamber.

        You have again made an attack rather than counter anything I said, just like all the other proggy drones.

        Pathetic.

      • Amazona March 12, 2013 / 9:51 am

        crusty doesn’t seem to understand what “open sourced” means.

      • Retired Spook March 12, 2013 / 11:04 am

        crusty doesn’t seem to understand what “open sourced” means.

        Crusty doesn’t seem to understand a lot of things. Doesn’t stop him from commenting. He must not be familiar with the old saying, “better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”

      • percybeezer March 12, 2013 / 11:13 am

        rusty also seems to have a problem understanding “innocent”.

        As well as “proof”, “evidence”, “opinion” ….. and SENATE.GOV

      • rustybrown2012 March 12, 2013 / 4:11 pm

        Tired,
        This is priceless. You claim wikipedia is a biased source, then you link to the deeply partisan New American – magazine of the John Birch Society! Real neutral there, Tired!

        But, even so, FROM YOUR OWN SOURCE:
        “The committee cleared everyone on McCarthy’s list, but within a year the State Department started proceedings against 49 of the 62.”

        …so the committee CLEARED everyone on the list (check), and the state dept. started proceedings against 49 of the 62, leaving 13 free, clear and innocent (mate).

        What was the question again? “Name for me one person accused of being a communist by McCarthy who turned out upon investigation to not be a communist.”

        …how about thirteen?

      • tiredoflibbs March 12, 2013 / 5:12 pm

        As predicted, crusty cherrypicks from the source I provided to make it look like he is using my source against my point. Nice try, crusty but you fail.

        However, I will post the excerpt in its ENTIRETY:

        Q. So was McCarthy right or wrong about the State Department?

        A.He was right. Of the 110 names that McCarthy gave the Tydings Committee to be investigated, 62 of them were employed by the State Department at the time of the hearings. The committee cleared everyone on McCarthy’s list, but within a year the State Department started proceedings against 49 of the 62. By the end of 1954, 81 of those on McCarthy’s list had left the government either by dismissal or resignation.

        Let’s see, the “committee cleared everyone on McCarthy’s list”.
        This would be the Tydings Committee. I have shown that Tyding did everything to interfere and counter McCarthy and NOT do exactly what it was set up to do – investigate security at the State Department.

        Then crusty ignores the last part – the most important part – “By the end of 1954, 81 of those on McCarthy’s list had left the government either by dismissal or resignation.”

        So they resigned or were dismissed for nothing? You haven’t proved anything. McCarthy was INVESTIGATING those at the state department for communist ties. Not everyone would be found to have those ties. There was no witch hunt. You have been listening to proggy propaganda and the Verona Project later, when it was declassified in the 90’s proved that McCarthy’s suspicions were correct and 40 years of proggy propaganda and their own witch hunt were wrong.

        Rusty, you have proved nothing, again. You made the accusation that THOUSANDS were victims of McCarthy and I and others proved that LIE wrong.

        Crusty, just remember, you have to do more than simply state “you are wrong and you know it!”. You have to back it up. Your sources were not even applicable – a house hearing and a bogus committee. You failed.

        I will remind you of the first rule of holes – a rule that you have failed to understand so far – maybe you should have someone explain it to you.

      • tiredoflibbs March 12, 2013 / 5:38 pm

        wow, crusty, you distorted the original argument – not surprised.

        I never claimed all who were on McCarthy’s list were communist, neither did Mark.

        Let us look at a section of his post you conveniently ignored:
        “McCarthy never said that everyone on the list was a for-sure communist agent, but that various agencies of government has discovered questionable activities and that the Administration was covering it up…often allowing them to quietly resign and then get jobs elsewhere in the United States.”

        Damn! That poor reading comprehension gets you every time!

      • rustybrown2012 March 12, 2013 / 5:50 pm

        Do you ever plan to add to or take part in a discussion or is your whole purpose just to attack what others say? Time to ante up or take a hike. //Moderator

      • rustybrown2012 March 12, 2013 / 5:55 pm

        Vulgarity will get you bounced. //Moderator

      • rustybrown2012 March 12, 2013 / 6:01 pm

        Do you ever plan to add to or take part in a discussion or is your whole purpose just to attack what others say? Time to ante up or take a hike. //Moderator

      • rustybrown2012 March 12, 2013 / 6:06 pm

        Do you ever plan to add to or take part in a discussion or is your whole purpose just to attack what others say? Time to ante up or take a hike. //Moderator

      • rustybrown2012 March 12, 2013 / 6:16 pm

        Do you ever plan to add to or take part in a discussion or is your whole purpose just to attack what others say? Time to ante up or take a hike. //Moderator

      • tiredoflibbs March 12, 2013 / 6:17 pm

        Why you are crusty.

        I have shown where your information is faulty. I am not just reliant on “biased source” as you are. I have show that in your own post you copy and pasted the fact that the charges were VALID!

        I have also shown the typical lefty tactic of cherrypicking information and when called on it, you ignore the accusation and pretended it never happened.

        Keep digging crusty, you only have one direction to go.

      • tiredoflibbs March 12, 2013 / 6:24 pm

        crusty gets it wrong again: ““You made the accusation that THOUSANDS were victims of McCarthy and I and others proved that LIE wrong”

        …where exactly did I say that, liar?”

        Uh, I said it not Spook. Damn, that reading comprehension again!

        And you said it (actually copy and paste) in your March 11, 2013 at 2:33 am post.

        Damn, again with that poor reading comprehension.

        crusty digs himself deeper:
        “Tired,
        And about the 81 who left their office? That was out of 110 “investigated”. That leaves 29 in the clear.

        I guess your math skills are commensurate with your reasoning skills.”

        – so? I never claimed that all who McCarthy investigated were guilty.

        Nice try. Keep deflecting away from your obvious errors and so desperately clinging to the belief that your dumbed down talking points are absolutely correct.

        I grow bored with your desperation.

        Pathetic.

      • Retired Spook March 12, 2013 / 8:02 pm

        Spook says:
        “You made the accusation that THOUSANDS were victims of McCarthy and I and others proved that LIE wrong”

        Spook never said any such thing.

    • tiredoflibbs March 12, 2013 / 5:20 pm

      crusty: “You claim wikipedia is a biased source, then you link to the deeply partisan New American – magazine of the John Birch Society! ”

      Notice in my post I state: “Listing more than one source will put this post into the “Pending” list for approval. Here is one source of many, they are out there it is just a matter of being willing to look at them and not just “progressive” only sites.”

      One source of many due to the limitations of this blog where more than one link will not get posted due to filtering ….. I guess you missed that little detail.

      Regardless of where ONE of my sources originates, your post states that “…all had previously been the subject of charges of varying worth and validity.”

      Maybe if I repeat it again, it will sink into the vacuum between your ears. Your own post shows they were not the innocent victims you and your biased source claim them to be.

      Have you had someone explain what “open-sourced” means?

      Probably not since you are afraid of the truth.

    • rustybrown2012 March 12, 2013 / 5:40 pm

      Tired,
      These gotchas of yours are lame even by your standards. You said:

      “YOUR OWN POST SAYS: “…all had previously been the subject of charges of varying worth and validity.”
      Again, your reading comprehension fails you! The charges against them had VALIDITY!”

      …the key phrase here is, follow me now, “varying worth and validity”. For the reading impaired that means ” some number of these were NOT very worthy or valid”. That same quote goes on to say:

      “Throughout the hearings, McCarthy employed colorful rhetoric, but produced no substantial evidence, to support his accusations.” NEXT!

      Elsewhere, you seem to take great issue with my decision to search for “victims of McCarthyism” when asked to provide evidence for “victims of McCarthyism”. I don’t quite understand your complaint, perhaps I should have searched for “dog breads of Western Europe”.

  4. tiredoflibbs March 12, 2013 / 6:27 pm

    Oh, the irony….

    crusty: “In a debate between adults, it’s common form to back up factual claims with sources”

    If you would only follow your advice…..

    I and others have debunked your claims. Hint: It won’t change the fact if you keep ignoring it. Plus crusty, a lie will not become the truth no matter how many times you repeat it.

    Keep digging…. proggy.

  5. rustybrown2012 March 12, 2013 / 8:39 pm

    Do you ever plan to add to or take part in a discussion or is your whole purpose just to attack what others say? Time to ante up or take a hike. //Moderator

  6. tiredoflibbs March 12, 2013 / 9:05 pm

    wow, crusty, more lies. I never said we needed more McCarthyism.

    Damn, that extremely poor reading comprehension is a bitch.

    I don’t need luck. I showed he was the subject of a House committee attack to the point where they vindicated individuals who were later dismissed or were forced to resign because of their communist ties. The committee’s reason for forming in the first place was a show, a scam – their real target was McCarthy. They did everything to sandbag and obstruct him.

    That is a fact. You can’t refute it. The declassified Verona Project proved McCarthy was right. History has been changed from the subject of a vicious attack from the progressive left to an individual who was mostly correct as a result of the findings from the Verona Project.

    No matter how many tantrums you throw, or lies you tell or mindlessly regurgitate, they will never change said fact.

    It was fun, drone. Next time, read carefully before you make a fool of yourself.

    • tiredoflibbs March 13, 2013 / 6:15 pm

      Wow, crusty. We can add delusional to your list of faults. That one may top your extremely poor reading comprehension.

      I countered EVERY ONE of your posts with facts. You on the other hand just ridiculed. You made it too easy:
      You posted a contradiction to your own poor reasoning.
      You posted something irrelevant to the discussion.
      You again, made claims of me I did not make.
      You denied posting something easily countered.
      You cherrypicked through information and posted it out of context.

      The list goes on and on – all easily refuted. I had history on my side. You have proggy propaganda refuted a decade ago.

      Try again, drone.

      Then you whine when you get caught not debating but only insulting and attacking.

    • tiredoflibbs March 13, 2013 / 8:35 pm

      You prove my point again crusty – I give facts, you give insult.

      Typical.

Comments are closed.