Modern McCarthyism - Political Opinion

Status
Not open for further replies.

MolaKule

Staff member
Joined
Jun 5, 2002
Messages
23,031
Location
Iowegia - USA
As you read this article, also consider the demeaner and decorum of both the 911 Commission and the Hearings into the Iraqi prisoners situation.
quote:
Modern Day McCarthyism By Justin Darr May 21, 2001 The black helicopters have landed once again outside the Democratic National Committee Headquarters. So, what are the Men in Black delivering to the Democrats this time? Could it be more world leaders rushing to voice their support for John Kerry? No. How about a delivery of new "interesting stories" from a hobo sitting in a lawn chair outside Area 51 about how George Bush knew about 9-11 and did nothing? No. Or, perhaps it is a visual aid to help try to explain how exactly John Kerry voted for the $87 billion Iraqi Supplemental Funding Bill before he voted against it. No, again. This time it is the venerable Senator Ernest Hollings stating that the President started the War with Iraq in order to pander support from American Jews. We are talking about the War on Terror, Senator, not serving kosher breakfasts at the White House. Maybe "black helicopters" is too kind; this idea sounds like it came straight from a gin bottle. The ridiculous nature of Senator Hollings' statements aside, the most amazing aspect of this story is that the Senator still has his job. Imagine for a moment that Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum wrote this article. I can hear the accusations of anti-Semitism and hate speech right now. We would not be discussing the content of the article, but how soon Senator Santorum would have to resign from the Senate. Republican elected officials, and Conservatives in general are forced to live under a constant double standard where their freedom of speech is oppressed out of fear of being declared racist, sexist, or any of the myriads of other "ists" the Liberals claim are destroying America. However, Liberals receive carte blanche to say and do anything they wish without censure. The well known case of former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott is a perfect example. Senator Lott was forced to step down from his leadership role due to the fact that he made a statement of support for Senator Strom Thurman at one of his retirement parties. Yes, Thurman was once a segregationist. However, to anyone who even claims to possess common sense, it was blatantly obvious that Senator Lott was just being polite for the old Senator's benefit, not endorsing segregation. Unfortunately, common sense, rationality, and what Senator Lott actually said mean nothing to today's Democrats. Liberals across the country exploded into a hysterical conniption fit not over what the Senator said, but what his statements could be construed as saying. Just as with the 1950s McCarthy Permanent Investigations Subcommittee, it did not matter whether you were or were not a Communist. Simply being charged was enough to destroy a person's life even if they were wrongly accused. Compare Senator Lott's situation to that of West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd. Where Lott's political life was destroyed for supporting a former segregationist, Senator Byrd was an actual member of the Ku Klux Klan. Hello! The K.K.K. for crying out loud! Strom Thurman supported segregation, Senator Byrd supported lynching. Where were the shouts of outrage when Byrd tried claiming that when he said "****** " he was not necessarily referring to African-Americans. The stately Senator proclaimed, "There are white niggers." That is just flat out stupid. Does the Senator think we are all idiots? Only a true Liberal could be inclusive enough to apply gross racial slurs to all people. Why has Byrd not been forced to step down from his position in the Senate? The same reason the National Organization of Women did not support Paula Jones or any of the other women President Clinton sexually assaulted. Liberals hold all of their values and beliefs as secondary to political power. Indignation is a political tool only to be rolled out when expedient to the Liberals' immediate goals. Democratic duplicity extends far beyond race relations. With the "Memogate" scandal, Teddy Kennedy has actually managed to turn the Republicans into the villains for uncovering his collusion with the ACLU and other Liberal groups to obstruct the judicial nomination process in the Senate and directly interfere in current federal litigation. No, Senator Kennedy is not running a "cover up", he is "outraged" at how a Republican staffer could have the gall to expose his unethical behavior. Nor, has Kennedy getting his hand caught in the cookie jar stopped him from vilifying President Bush for "covering up" poor Iraqi intelligence before the War. The bottom line is that when a Republican is accused of anything, he is vilified, while a Democrat is tolerated, if not celebrated. Americans had hoped that the dark days of the McCarthy witch hunts were over. Senator McCarthy (a Republican) has been justifiably placed into the annals of American shame, however, his methods have not been forgotten. Liberals and the Democratic Party to this day read the history of McCarthy and perpetuate his abuses of power. Under the guise of sensitivity, tolerance, and fairness, the Democrats have become the single greatest threat to American liberty and freedom of speech in history. ----------- Justin Darr is a veteran retail manager from the Philadelphia area where he lives with this wife, Erin, twin children Brandon and Brittany, three mice, two cats, and a spoiled dog named Xena. He grew up in rural Western Pennsylvania where he learned the values of hard work, honesty, family, and the downfalls of Liberalism. Justin is an expert in political philosophy, western world history, and the development of American society. He has worked on various political campaigns at all levels, served as an election official to verify ballot counts, and is a well know "aggressive debater" to all that know him.
 
Joined
Mar 20, 2004
Messages
4,375
Location
Camas, WA
As I recall the Lott stepped down because the Republicans asked him to, and since they asked him to purely for political reasons lay the blame where it belongs. If the Republicans supported his position they shouldn't have requested that he step down.
 
Joined
Jun 26, 2003
Messages
2,556
Location
Columbus Ohio
quote:
Originally posted by 1sttruck: As I recall the Lott stepped down because the Republicans asked him to, and since they asked him to purely for political reasons lay the blame where it belongs. If the Republicans supported his position they shouldn't have requested that he step down.
Lay the blame where it belongs. I would say that it belongs to the liberal media........as I can remember hearing about Lott's comments every time I turned on a TV, for 2 weeks straight. [Roll Eyes]
 
Joined
Feb 21, 2003
Messages
3,784
Location
Houston, Tex
So now it is the "liberal media"'s fault when it simply reports his actual statements? What were they supposed to do, let it slide, maybe fall to their knees and praise him for his progressive attitudes? You only think I'm joking - the current conservative position is that anything less than wholehearted support for their agenda is outrageous, and/or treason. The reason the Lott story had legs was because that wasn't a one time event where he was misquoted, there had been numerous recent events in less visible venues where he had been noted saying the same things. [ May 22, 2004, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: TooManyWheels ]
 
Joined
Mar 20, 2004
Messages
4,375
Location
Camas, WA
The media did not make Lott step down, unless you want to state that Lott was in fact not responsible for his actions, and that the 'mean media made him do it'. If that is the case, what else did the media make Lott do ? If the media is liberal then shouldn't it have made Lott liberal, and not allowed him to make non-liberal statements ? This is a very basic principle, and one that needs to be clarified.
 
Joined
Feb 21, 2004
Messages
2,149
Location
USA
Name the Three Presidents who had that romance in Adventure...A vision of a new frontier, Anderew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, and John F. Kennedy. And there was Richard Nixon who learned in history of being a realist. It sucks cause I think a lot of Americans are that adventure in romance...looking for that new frontier. It's what America NEEDS ...We need a change....AN ADVENTURE ... [Patriot]
 
Joined
Feb 21, 2003
Messages
3,784
Location
Houston, Tex
If "political expert" Justin Darr had in interest in being objective on the subject of McCarthyism he would have done an extensive treatise on John Ashcroft and the so called Patriot Act, or the planned but supposedly retracted "Tattle on Your Neighbor" act.
 
Joined
Jun 26, 2003
Messages
2,556
Location
Columbus Ohio
Who said that the media made him do it? I simply stated that the media is what forced the issue when it came to lott. When a worthless spineless liberal makes a faux pas.........why doesn't the media bend over backwards to crucify them? Oh yeah.......I forgot about the hidden agenda thing. [Duh!]
 
Joined
Jul 24, 2002
Messages
11,410
Location
The Sandhills of NewYorkistan
"If "political expert" Justin Darr had in interest in being objective on the subject of McCarthyism he would have done an extensive treatise on John Ashcroft and the so called Patriot Act, or the planned but supposedly retracted "Tattle on Your Neighbor" act. " ------------------------------------------------------- We must do something, the AG is now passing the law in the Senate and the House of Representatives. How did this happen?
 
Joined
Dec 21, 2003
Messages
12,385
Location
Northern CA
quote:
Originally posted by GROUCHO MARX: "If "political expert" Justin Darr had in interest in being objective on the subject of McCarthyism he would have done an extensive treatise on John Ashcroft and the so called Patriot Act, or the planned but supposedly retracted "Tattle on Your Neighbor" act. " ------------------------------------------------------- We must do something, the AG is now passing the law in the Senate and the House of Representatives. How did this happen?
If you voted for Bush and the folks that control the house and senate you are part of the problem.
 
Joined
Mar 19, 2004
Messages
1,863
Location
Ky
I must ring in here and be a defender of what is right and what is wrong.A conservative Republican in this country can be destroyed with the slightest misrepresentation.A liberal Democrat can do the same and little if anything is said.Clinton has been accused of murder and many other things in his political career but it is kept quiet for the most part and when it is made public the rest of the Democratic liberals water it down and or try to make it someone else's fault.A Republican can hardly get a way with passing gas without the media or some liberal Democrat trying to say that it was done in an UN-American or racist or mean spirited way.It would be like:Hey do you know that Republican Sen. from ****?,he passed gas yesterday,he only did it because I am a **** and he knew it,he needs kicked out of congress.Today in the news it was stated the Kerry is complaining about our need for middle eastern oil and that we need to have an independent energy source.Clinton was in office for 8 years,Kerry has been in office 20+ years,why now is he all of a sudden screaming we need dependence.Why after all of Kerry's years in congress has he not introduced an energy bill,why after all of these years has he not introduced any bill? If Kerry was a Republican [Eek!] the Democrats would be yelling from the house tops letting every one know that he has never in his career introduced a bill.The Republican party did ask Sen.Lott to step down because of the negative publicity,the liberal media and Democrats pushed it daily.This is the first I have heard of Sen.Hollings doing what he did,the liberal media of this country must have kept it as quiet as possible.I watch the news on a pretty regular basis and heard nothing of this.The liberal Democrats want to do what they want,when they want and how they want regardless of anything else.This 'luxury' is not given to conservative Republicans.
 
Joined
May 19, 2003
Messages
2,361
Location
Texas
quote:
Originally posted by XS650:
quote:
Originally posted by GROUCHO MARX: "If "political expert" Justin Darr had in interest in being objective on the subject of McCarthyism he would have done an extensive treatise on John Ashcroft and the so called Patriot Act, or the planned but supposedly retracted "Tattle on Your Neighbor" act. " ------------------------------------------------------- We must do something, the AG is now passing the law in the Senate and the House of Representatives. How did this happen?
If you voted for Bush and the folks that control the house and senate you are part of the problem.

I would say you are part of teh problem when there is an blind allegance to any ideology, man, or political party. Very few think for themselves anymore. Unitl that happens, we will continue to slide down the chute. This is the greatest problem. Also, there are few and far between that stand up for what is right despite the costs. America is headed down the road to tyranny. We have sold ourselves out with the idea that we can trade freedom for security, just as Ben Franklin said. Liberal, conservative, neo-conservative, republican, whatever that control now have bought into the idea that government is the answer, when it is the greatest demon there is besides religion. Both have their place but when they control rather than serve they are harsh masters and require many lives and lots of blood to overthrow. Dan
 
Joined
Jul 24, 2002
Messages
11,410
Location
The Sandhills of NewYorkistan
First someone says that Ashcroft is responsible for the Patriot Act. When it is pointed out that the AG cannot write and pass legislation, it is pointed out that Republicans control the White House, Senate and House, so anyone who voted for a Republican is responsible. Well, there were many Democrats who voted for this act, are they responsible too. Or do they get a free in your eyes pass because their Dems? It's reminds me of Byrd and Teddy Kennedy, two of the biggest disgraces to the American politics, but they wear the Democratic Banner so who cares. BTW, I vote for many Dems as there are crooked Republicans here in NY. I won't give them a pass. It's called thinking and being informed.
 
Joined
Dec 21, 2003
Messages
12,385
Location
Northern CA
quote:
Originally posted by GROUCHO MARX: First someone says that Ashcroft is responsible for the Patriot Act. When it is pointed out that the AG cannot write and pass legislation, it is pointed out that Republicans control the White House, Senate and House, so anyone who voted for a Republican is responsible.
Silly me, Republicans control the Administration, the House and the Senate. Obviously it was the tooth fairy that concieved and passed the patriot act. And no, the people who voted them in obviously have no culpability for electing them.
quote:
Well, there were many Democrats who voted for this act, are they responsible too. Or do they get a free in your eyes pass because their Dems?
OTOH, the Dems who voted for the patriot act are responsible because at least some of them were spineless wankers who moistened a finger to see which way the wind was blowing and voted accordingly.
 
Joined
Sep 28, 2002
Messages
39,800
Wow ..you'ld think that this was a debate about the merrits of GC [Big Grin] A whole lot of bitterness here. The frustration that all of us feel is that no matter which poison you choose ... ...we're screwed [crushedcar] Soon many of you will face the fact that we're vitually powerless to change this. We, in fact, vote in the next clown that will play us a tune and send us further into the crapper. Ever heard of a condtion called "learned helplessness"?
 
Joined
Dec 21, 2003
Messages
12,385
Location
Northern CA
quote:
Originally posted by Gary Allan: Soon many of you will face the fact that we're vitually powerless to change this. We, in fact, vote in the next clown that will play us a tune and send us further into the crapper. Ever heard of a condtion called "learned helplessness"?
I have long believed that the ideal condition for the federal gumnt is gridlock. Whenever either party has full control of the gumnt, hold onto your wallet and don't bend over.
 
Joined
Jul 24, 2002
Messages
11,410
Location
The Sandhills of NewYorkistan
"I have long believed that the ideal condition for the federal gumnt is gridlock. Whenever either party has full control of the gumnt, hold onto your wallet and don't bend over. " -------------------------------------------------------- The evidence sure points that way.
 
Joined
Jan 17, 2004
Messages
456
Location
North Carolina
Just thought I'd post Senator Holling's full article. Bush wanted to invade Iraq to help Israel Posted Sunday, May 9, 2004 - 12:12 am By Sen. Ernest F. Hollings The president?s war has backfired, and we?re creating more terrorism than we?re stopping. With 760 dead in Iraq and over 3,000 maimed for life, home folks continue to argue why we are in Iraq ? and how to get out. Now everyone knows what was not the cause. Even President Bush acknowledges that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9-11. Listing the 45 countries wherein al-Qaida was operating on Sept. 11 (70 cells in the United States), the State Department did not list Iraq. Richard Clarke, in "Against All Enemies," tells how the United States had not received any threat of terrorism for 10 years from Saddam at the time of our invasion. On page 231, John McLaughlin of the CIA verifies this to Paul Wolfowitz. In 1993 President Clinton responded to Saddam's attempt on the life of President George Herbert Walker Bush by putting a missile down Saddam's intelligence headquarters in Baghdad. Not a big kill, but Saddam got the message ? monkey around with the United States and a missile lands on his head. Of course there were no weapons of mass destruction. Israel's intelligence, Mossad, knows what's going on in Iraq. They are the best. They have to know. Israel's survival depends on knowing. Israel long since would have taken us to the weapons of mass destruction if there were any or if they had been removed. With Iraq no threat, why invade a sovereign country? The answer: President Bush's policy to secure Israel. Led by Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Charles Krauthammer, for years there has been a domino school of thought that the way to guarantee Israel's security is to spread democracy in the area. Wolfowitz wrote: "The United States may not be able to lead countries through the door of democracy, but where that door is locked shut by a totalitarian deadbolt, American power may be the only way to open it up." And on another occasion: Iraq as "the first Arab democracy ... would cast a very large shadow, starting with Syria and Iran but across the whole Arab world." Three weeks before invasion President Bush stated: "A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example for freedom for other nations in the region." Every president since 1947 has made a futile attempt to help Israel negotiate peace. But no leadership has surfaced amongst the Palestinians that can make a binding agreement. President Bush realized his chances at negotiation were no better. He came to office imbued with one thought ? re-election. Bush felt tax cuts would hold his crowd together and spreading democracy in the Mideast to secure Israel would take the Jewish vote from the Democrats. You don't come to town and announce your Israel policy is to invade Iraq. But George W. Bush, as stated by former Secretary Paul O'Neill and others, started laying the groundwork to invade Iraq days after inauguration. And, without any Iraq connection to 9-11, within weeks he had the Pentagon outlining a plan to invade Iraq. He was determined. President Bush thought taking Iraq would be easy. Wolfowitz said it would take only seven days. Cheney believed we would be greeted as liberators. But Cheney's man, Chalabi, made a mess of the debathification of Iraq by dismissing Republican Guard leadership and Sunni leaders who soon joined with the insurgents. Worst of all, we tried to secure Iraq with too few troops. In 1966 in South Vietnam with a population of 16,543,000, Gen. William C. Westmoreland, with 535,000 U.S. troops was still asking for more. In Iraq with a population of 24,683,000, Gen. John Abizaid with only 135,000 troops can barely secure the troops, much less the country. If the troops are there to fight, they are too few. If there to die, they are too many. To secure Iraq we need more troops ? at least 100,000 more. The only way to get the United Nations back in Iraq is to make the country secure. Once back, the French, Germans and others will join with the United Nations to take over. With President Bush's domino policy in the Mideast gone awry, he keeps shouting "Terrorism War." Terrorism is a method, not a war. We don't call the Crimean War with the Charge of the Light Brigade the Cavalry War. Or World War II the Blitzkrieg War. There is terrorism in Ireland against the Brits. There is terrorism in India and in Pakistan. In the Mideast terrorism is a separate problem to be defeated by diplomacy and negotiation, not militarily. Here, might does not make right ? right makes might. Acting militarily, we have created more terrorism than we have eliminated. Sunday, May 23 Now who is Justin Darr? Welcome to the home of the Rightsided Newsletter, a free, twice-weekly newsletter of political news and analysis from the libertarian-conservative persective. Here, you can find out about the Rightsided Newsletter, subscribe, and/or contact us. THE RIGHT COLUMNISTS Featuring: Dennis Campbell, Judson Cox, JUSTIN DARR, Jan Ireland, Mike Mina, SARTRE, Isaiah Z. Sterrett, Barbara J. Stock, and Stephen Erwin I wonder what he would think about the Ken "OF STARR CHAMBER" Investigation of Clinton? Now here's something on McCarthyism: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The word "McCarthyism" is not a neutral term, but now carries connotations of false, even hysterical, accusation, and of government attacks on the political minority. From the viewpoint of the great majority of American citizens in the then fairly conservative political climate, the suppression of radicalism and radical organizations in the United States was a struggle against a dangerous subversive element controlled by a foreign power that posed a real danger to the security of the country, thus justifying extreme, even extra-legal measures. From the radical viewpoint it was seen as class warfare, particularly by those communists actually targeted. From the viewpoint of people who were caught up in the conflict without having done anything objectionable, it was a massive violation of civil and Constitutional rights. So the investigation of 911 (government and political incompetence) and Iraq Prisoner Abuse (even Bush can't defend this) is "McCarthyism", oh come now, and you accuse the left of hysteria. Let Justin Darr also post information on Patriot Act abuses and McCarthyism, he'd be closer to the point. [ May 23, 2004, 10:30 AM: Message edited by: needtoknow ]
 
Joined
May 12, 2004
Messages
56
Location
Tucson, Arizona
If I voted for PRESIDENT Bush, I am part of the problem? Yeah sure. You stated that democrats who voted for the patriot act are weak and spineless but otherwise they are Wonderful? Bulls...t! Do you actualy think that the arabs were not planning their attacks on us for a long time before George Bush became president? You must live in cloud cuckoo land. [Dummy!]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top