A Vicious Racist Homosexual. J Edgar Hoover
Raymond
including their boss, RFK, attorney general of the United States.,
A Vicious Racist Homosexual. J Edgar "Mary" Hoover controlled by the
Mafia
Would you like to comment?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uij10Txog80&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87iKmjKyMzs&feature=related
PBS Secret Files ON J Edgar Hoover Secret Files 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jc4NJqQ3lI&feature=related
PBS Secret Files ON J Edgar Hoover Secret Files 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlsTYpliUWQ&feature=related
PBS Secret Files ON J Edgar Hoover Secret Files PBS 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wkc-e5qqKMg&feature=related
black...@aol.com
> J. Edgar Hoover and his FBI hated everything about the Kennedys,
> including their boss, RFK, attorney general of the United States.,
>
> A Vicious Racist Homosexual. J Edgar "Mary" Hoover controlled by the
> Mafia
>
> PBS Secret Files ON J Edgar Hoover Secret Files 2http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jc4NJqQ3lI&feature=related
>
> PBS Secret Files ON J Edgar Hoover Secret Files 3http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlsTYpliUWQ&feature=related
>
> PBS Secret Files ON J Edgar Hoover Secret Files PBS 5http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wkc-e5qqKMg&feature=related
Wow! Talk about overstating a case.
I certainly have some issues with the late Director of the FBI, but my
study of him does not show him to be vicious. And the term racist is
also arguable. He was slow to involve the FBI in civil rights cases,
and he did not like Martin Luther King, because King criticized the
FBI. But the record also indicates that Hoover opposed the internment
of Japanese-Americans in WWII. As for homosexuality, the record does
not demonstrate this to a certainty, although there are suggestions
that he was. I don't personally care if he was, but some of his
actions could be seen as hypocritical, if he was. I also think that
the cross-dressing allegations come from unreliable sources.
And yes, he didn't like RFK, who had also been critical of the FBI.
When he became Hoover's boss, he pursued policies (and operated in a
style) that Hoover didn't like. And RFK didn't like Hoover, either.
But does all this justify your subject line?
Anthony Marsh
This may sound strange, but the thing I am most interested in is Gordon
Novel's claim that the CIA photographed Hoover having gay sex in the
hotel in New York in order to counter blackmail him.
I have always been suspicious of Novel, but expect it from Angleton.
John McAdams
<black...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Feb 3, 8:53 am, Raymond <Bluerhy...@aol.com> wrote:
>> J. Edgar Hoover and his FBI hated everything about the Kennedys,
>> including their boss, RFK, attorney general of the United States.,
>>
>> A Vicious Racist Homosexual. J Edgar "Mary" Hoover controlled by the
>> Mafia
>> Would you like to comment?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uij10Txog80&feature=relatedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87iKmjKyMzs&feature=related
>>
>> PBS Secret Files ON J Edgar Hoover Secret Files 2http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jc4NJqQ3lI&feature=related
>>
>> PBS Secret Files ON J Edgar Hoover Secret Files 3http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlsTYpliUWQ&feature=related
>>
>> PBS Secret Files ON J Edgar Hoover Secret Files PBS 5http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wkc-e5qqKMg&feature=related
>
>Wow! Talk about overstating a case.
>
>I certainly have some issues with the late Director of the FBI, but my
>study of him does not show him to be vicious. And the term racist is
>also arguable. He was slow to involve the FBI in civil rights cases,
>and he did not like Martin Luther King, because King criticized the
>FBI.
Hoover may have been concerned with "communist influence" on King,
since King did have one or two really hard leftists in his circle
(pretty much Communist fellow travellers, actually).
Of course, no legitimate national security consideration could justify
Hoover's out-of-control vendetta against King.
>But the record also indicates that Hoover opposed the internment
>of Japanese-Americans in WWII. As for homosexuality, the record does
>not demonstrate this to a certainty, although there are suggestions
>that he was. I don't personally care if he was, but some of his
>actions could be seen as hypocritical, if he was. I also think that
>the cross-dressing allegations come from unreliable sources.
>
My colleague Athan Theoharis, a leftie who has been extremely critical
of King, just flat doesn't believe the "Hoover in a dress" stories. He
even wrote a little volume about it.
>And yes, he didn't like RFK, who had also been critical of the FBI.
>When he became Hoover's boss, he pursued policies (and operated in a
>style) that Hoover didn't like. And RFK didn't like Hoover, either.
>
>But does all this justify your subject line?
My understanding (don't remember the source right now) that RFK
approved the wiretapping of Martin Luther King.
Of course, some of Hoover's actions toward King went far beyond
anything Bobby would have approved, but Bobby hardly covered himself
with glory.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Bud
> including their boss, RFK, attorney general of the United States.,
What impact does this have on the traitorous, wife-beating commie
punk who shot our whoremongering adulterous President?
> A Vicious Racist Homosexual. J Edgar "Mary" Hoover controlled by the
> Mafia
> Would you like to comment?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uij10Txog80&feature=relatedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87iKmjKyMzs&feature=related
>
> PBS Secret Files ON J Edgar Hoover Secret Files 2http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jc4NJqQ3lI&feature=related
>
> PBS Secret Files ON J Edgar Hoover Secret Files 3http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlsTYpliUWQ&feature=related
Dave Reitzes
Raymond,
Are these numerous posts of yours leading to any particular point?
Dave
On Feb 3, 8:53�am, Raymond <Bluerhy...@aol.com> wrote:
> J. Edgar Hoover and his FBI hated everything about the Kennedys,
> including their boss, RFK, attorney general of the United States.,
>
> A Vicious Racist Homosexual. J Edgar "Mary" Hoover controlled by the
> Mafia
> Would you like to comment?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uij10Txog80&feature=relatedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87iKmjKyMzs&feature=related
>
> PBS Secret Files ON J Edgar Hoover Secret Files 2http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jc4NJqQ3lI&feature=related
>
> PBS Secret Files ON J Edgar Hoover Secret Files 3http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlsTYpliUWQ&feature=related
geovu...@gmail.com
> J. Edgar Hoover and his FBI hated everything about the Kennedys,
> including their boss, RFK, attorney general of the United States.,
>
> A Vicious Racist Homosexual. J Edgar "Mary" Hoover controlled by the
> Mafia
>
> PBS Secret Files ON J Edgar Hoover Secret Files 2http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jc4NJqQ3lI&feature=related
>
> PBS Secret Files ON J Edgar Hoover Secret Files 3http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlsTYpliUWQ&feature=related
>
> PBS Secret Files ON J Edgar Hoover Secret Files PBS 5http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wkc-e5qqKMg&feature=related
Wow! Did you just group vicious and racist with homosexual. That's
just messed up!
John McAdams
I think that's considered OK if the person is on the political right.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Peter Fokes
> On 4 Feb 2009 00:41:18 -0500, geovult...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Feb 3, 7:53 am, Raymond <Bluerhy...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> J. Edgar Hoover and his FBI hated everything about the Kennedys,
> >> including their boss, RFK, attorney general of the United States.,
>
> >> A Vicious Racist Homosexual. J Edgar "Mary" Hoover controlled by the
> >> Mafia
>
> >> PBS Secret Files ON J Edgar Hoover Secret Files 2http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jc4NJqQ3lI&feature=related
>
> >> PBS Secret Files ON J Edgar Hoover Secret Files 3http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlsTYpliUWQ&feature=related
>
> >> PBS Secret Files ON J Edgar Hoover Secret Files PBS 5http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wkc-e5qqKMg&feature=related
>
> >Wow! Did you just group vicious and racist with homosexual. That's
> >just messed up!
>
> I think that's considered OK if the person is on the political right.
>
> .John
> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Of course it's not. You are obviously being sarcastic.
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
jbarge
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 3, 7:53 am, Raymond <Bluerhy...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> J. Edgar Hoover and his FBI hated everything about the Kennedys,
> >> including their boss, RFK, attorney general of the United States.,
>
> >> A Vicious Racist Homosexual. J Edgar "Mary" Hoover controlled by the
> >> Mafia
>
> >> PBS Secret Files ON J Edgar Hoover Secret Files 2http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jc4NJqQ3lI&feature=related
>
> >> PBS Secret Files ON J Edgar Hoover Secret Files 3http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlsTYpliUWQ&feature=related
>
> >> PBS Secret Files ON J Edgar Hoover Secret Files PBS 5http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wkc-e5qqKMg&feature=related
>
> >Wow! Did you just group vicious and racist with homosexual. That's
> >just messed up!
>
> I think that's considered OK if the person is on the political right.
>
> .John
>
> - Show quoted text -
Boy I thought that Anthony Summers cross-dressing story was weak tea.
But J. certainly acted like a gay man - never married, apparently
never had a sexual relationship with a woman (no woman ever "kissed
and told" - admittedly not "proof" but one believable girl friend
would certainly help out), life long "friendship" with Clyde (have you
seen the photos J. Edger took of Clyde napping?).
I mean, it adds up. Kind of like LHO and a certain rifle on the 6th
floor (but maybe he was framed as well, eh?)
The idea that J. Edger wasn't a racist is a stretch.
Sure, he wasn't a member of the klan, but you don't need to be a KKK-
er to be a racist.
He didn't support the elimination of segregation, - he thought it was
fine for southerners, like most white people of his generation.
He overstated the communist menace and used it for his own agenda,
specifically in the case of MLK.
JFK and RFK went along with him on the MLK wiretaps because they were
afraid that he'd leak it and make them look "soft on communism".
Not exactly a profile in courage, but at least they knew that
segregation was doomed.
J. Edger was at his worse with the Mafia - he'd rather arrest a
professor at Brown for communist espionage than even ponder the
billions leached by Organized Crime - this just seems undeniable to
me.
I find the comment about it being okay to smear the right; that's a
very funny joke until you look at the heap of ruined lives from the
result of the smears of HUAC, McCarthy, and, yes, the FBI.
There's plenty of guilt to go around.
I think J. Edger quickly figured out that all he had to do was put
together a case against LHO that was convincing and his work would be
done - see Odio, Tague, asking Ruby's mob contacts if Ruby was
connected with the mob (they said no - can you imagine?), Hosty's
note, withholding the Milteer information from the WC, withholding the
Trifficante allegation, and on and on and on.
The funny thing is.....had they investigated with any due diligence,
they still might have found that LHO did it.
But they didn't and here we are.
J. Edger Hoover - a great guy to catch bank robbers. Good for cracking
espionage rings.
And that's about it.
John McAdams
>On Feb 4, 12:41 am, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>> On 4 Feb 2009 00:41:18 -0500, geovult...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >Wow! Did you just group vicious and racist with homosexual. That's
>> >just messed up!
>>
>> I think that's considered OK if the person is on the political right.
>>
>> .John
>
>Boy I thought that Anthony Summers cross-dressing story was weak tea.
>But J. certainly acted like a gay man - never married, apparently
>never had a sexual relationship with a woman (no woman ever "kissed
>and told" - admittedly not "proof" but one believable girl friend
>would certainly help out), life long "friendship" with Clyde (have you
>seen the photos J. Edger took of Clyde napping?).
>I mean, it adds up. Kind of like LHO and a certain rifle on the 6th
>floor (but maybe he was framed as well, eh?)
You need to be careful here.
We live in a highly sexualized culture, so it's hard to believe that
anybody might just flat not be having sex with anybody.
But that's possible, and didn't seem to impossible in Hoover's time.
Indeed, if some people are over-sexed, some are under-sexed.
Further, it's possible to have a male friend, even a roommate, and not
be having sex with him.
So I don't think it adds up so clearly as you think, although nobody
can prove he *wasn't* Tolson's sex partner.
>The idea that J. Edger wasn't a racist is a stretch.
>Sure, he wasn't a member of the klan, but you don't need to be a KKK-
>er to be a racist.
>He didn't support the elimination of segregation, - he thought it was
>fine for southerners, like most white people of his generation.
>He overstated the communist menace and used it for his own agenda,
>specifically in the case of MLK.
That's what I said in a previous post on this thread.
>JFK and RFK went along with him on the MLK wiretaps because they were
>afraid that he'd leak it and make them look "soft on communism".
>Not exactly a profile in courage, but at least they knew that
>segregation was doomed.
Glad you admit they were involved.
>J. Edger was at his worse with the Mafia - he'd rather arrest a
>professor at Brown for communist espionage than even ponder the
>billions leached by Organized Crime - this just seems undeniable to
>me.
I frankly haven't researched this, and don't know whether it is true
or now.
I would like Blackburst's opinion on this.
I do know that an operation called BRILAB was in place.
>I find the comment about it being okay to smear the right; that's a
>very funny joke until you look at the heap of ruined lives from the
>result of the smears of HUAC, McCarthy, and, yes, the FBI.
>There's plenty of guilt to go around.
But it's not OK to attack somebody for being *homosexual* if they are
on the left.
It's OK to attack somebody for being homosexual if they are on the
right.
Politically correct double standard.
>I think J. Edger quickly figured out that all he had to do was put
>together a case against LHO that was convincing and his work would be
>done - see Odio, Tague, asking Ruby's mob contacts if Ruby was
>connected with the mob (they said no - can you imagine?), Hosty's
>note, withholding the Milteer information from the WC, withholding the
>Trifficante allegation, and on and on and on.
That's the standard mantra, but much of it is bogus.
The FBI, for example, established that Milteer was in Quitman, GA at
the time of the assassination. That made him a person of no real
interest.
>The funny thing is.....had they investigated with any due diligence,
>they still might have found that LHO did it.
>But they didn't and here we are.
>J. Edger Hoover - a great guy to catch bank robbers. Good for cracking
>espionage rings.
>And that's about it.
That's not trivial.
But like most great historical figures, Hoover had his faults, and
some were very large.
But then King has his faults too.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
black...@aol.com
> >J. Edger was at his worse with the Mafia - he'd rather arrest a
> >professor at Brown for communist espionage than even ponder the
> >billions leached by Organized Crime - this just seems undeniable to
> >me.
>
> I frankly haven't researched this, and don't know whether it is true
> or now.
>
> I would like Blackburst's opinion on this.
>
> I do know that an operation called BRILAB was in place.
>
On the OC thing? Sure, Hoover had a blind spot about it, despite brave/
futile approaches by FBI underlings, until after Apalachin '57, and
pressure by RFK starting in 61. Tony Summers and others also make a good
case that Hoover may have had some contact with Costello, among others. I
think Hoover thought gambling was OK.
Look, I'm not defending Hoover. He was a brilliant man who built a very
good organization, but also limited it by his own selfishness. I've never
spoken with or read something from a former FBI person who, in spite of
loving the Bureau, didn't think that the Director was a very odd,
sometimes mean man. Hoover should be recognized for what he did and didn't
do.
But in CT circles, he has become an icon for evil and more. I just think
that's all typical exaggerated thinking.
black...@aol.com
a lot of FBI stuff, including things by those on the left like Victor
Navasky and your colleague, Athan Theoharis. One thing that I never really
considered was how much more RFK's zeal to get Hoffa constituted a
vendetta than a fair prosecution. ANYBODY could have been "gotten" under
such pressure. Yes, Hoffa was a bad guy, but the forces of prosecution
went way overboard in terms of civil liberties.
jbarge
> On 4 Feb 2009 22:46:34 -0500, jbarge <anjba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 4, 12:41 am, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> >> On 4 Feb 2009 00:41:18 -0500, geovult...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> >Wow! Did you just group vicious and racist with homosexual. That's
> >> >just messed up!
>
> >> I think that's considered OK if the person is on the political right.
>
> >> .John
>
> >Boy I thought that Anthony Summers cross-dressing story was weak tea.
> >But J. certainly acted like a gay man - never married, apparently
> >never had a sexual relationship with a woman (no woman ever "kissed
> >and told" - admittedly not "proof" but one believable girl friend
> >would certainly help out), life long "friendship" with Clyde (have you
> >seen the photos J. Edger took of Clyde napping?).
> >I mean, it adds up. Kind of like LHO and a certain rifle on the 6th
> >floor (but maybe he was framed as well, eh?)
>
> You need to be careful here.
>
> We live in a highly sexualized culture, so it's hard to believe that
> anybody might just flat not be having sex with anybody.
>
> But that's possible, and didn't seem to impossible in Hoover's time.
>
> Indeed, if some people are over-sexed, some are under-sexed.
>
> Further, it's possible to have a male friend, even a roommate, and not
> be having sex with him.
>
> So I don't think it adds up so clearly as you think, although nobody
> can prove he *wasn't* Tolson's sex partner.
as far as J. Edger's sex life goes.
> >The idea that J. Edger wasn't a racist is a stretch.
> >Sure, he wasn't a member of the klan, but you don't need to be a KKK-
> >er to be a racist.
> >He didn't support the elimination of segregation, - he thought it was
> >fine for southerners, like most white people of his generation.
> >He overstated the communist menace and used it for his own agenda,
> >specifically in the case of MLK.
>
> That's what I said in a previous post on this thread.
> >JFK and RFK went along with him on the MLK wiretaps because they were
> >afraid that he'd leak it and make them look "soft on communism".
> >Not exactly a profile in courage, but at least they knew that
> >segregation was doomed.
>
> Glad you admit they were involved.
> >J. Edger was at his worse with the Mafia - he'd rather arrest a
> >professor at Brown for communist espionage than even ponder the
> >billions leached by Organized Crime - this just seems undeniable to
> >me.
>
> I frankly haven't researched this, and don't know whether it is true
> or now.
Plenty of left wingers use it to attack him over it, and somewhat
overstate the case.
But it is overall true - he cared more about a near-nonexistant
American Communist party than about the mob.
> I would like Blackburst's opinion on this.
>
> I do know that an operation called BRILAB was in place.
nothing, but poured gobs into bank robberies and espionage rings.
But on the other hand I'm always open to discussion and being made
aware of facts previously unknown.
> >I find the comment about it being okay to smear the right; that's a
> >very funny joke until you look at the heap of ruined lives from the
> >result of the smears of HUAC, McCarthy, and, yes, the FBI.
> >There's plenty of guilt to go around.
>
> But it's not OK to attack somebody for being *homosexual* if they are
> on the left.
> It's OK to attack somebody for being homosexual if they are on the
> right.
thought it okay no matter what.
Before the dreaded "politically correct" movement occured, homosexuals
were essentially tormented, and included among the tormenters were
plenty of right-wingers (the FBI for starters).
Now they're accepted - surely that's an improvement.
Dick Armey calls Barney Frank "Barney Fag" - there's an example of a
right-winger name calling a gay person.
There's no monopoly on virtue (to quote Al Haig) by the idealogical
camps on this issue, though I'm guessing the "attacking" by the left
is over hypocrisy, not sexual preferences.
Perhaps that's a bit subtle.
>
> >I think J. Edger quickly figured out that all he had to do was put
> >together a case against LHO that was convincing and his work would be
> >done - see Odio, Tague, asking Ruby's mob contacts if Ruby was
> >connected with the mob (they said no - can you imagine?), Hosty's
> >note, withholding the Milteer information from the WC, withholding the
> >Trifficante allegation, and on and on and on.
>
> That's the standard mantra, but much of it is bogus.
>
> The FBI, for example, established that Milteer was in Quitman, GA at
> the time of the assassination. That made him a person of no real
> interest.
investigate, not just accept the FBI at face value, as, for example,
the SBT theory.
So my point is, did the FBI inform the Warren Commission that a
fanatical racist was tape recorded discussing JFK's assassination by a
rifle from an office building (along with the "they'll pick somebody
up just to throw the public off" comment) a few weeks before it
actually occured?
Perhaps they did - I would be most interested in knowing that.
As for being of no real interest, my confidence in the due diligence
of the fabled FBI concerning the JFK assassination remains rather
low.
> >The funny thing is.....had they investigated with any due diligence,
> >they still might have found that LHO did it.
> >But they didn't and here we are.
> >J. Edger Hoover - a great guy to catch bank robbers. Good for cracking
> >espionage rings.
> >And that's about it.
>
> That's not trivial.
outdated.
And besides, he was also a noted blackmailer of congressmen and
Presidents, at least in my opinion.
> But like most great historical figures, Hoover had his faults, and
> some were very large.
>
> But then King has his faults too.
Anthony Marsh
A picture is worth 1000 words.
tomnln
<black...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:24981007-b85a-4d9e...@e10g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
Read the Church Committee Volumes to see what Hoover did to Dr. Martin
Luthor king.
Hoover's actions are reminescent of Nazi Germany.
black...@aol.com
> BOTTOM POST;
>
> <blackbu...@aol.com> wrote in message
That's one of the bad things Hoover did do. Well, actually, Bill
Sullivan, but Hoover approved it.
jbarge
John McAdams
Right.
The CPUSA was not "nonexistent" in the 30s. In fact, it was a
powerful force in leftist politics, mostly because of its ability to
manipulate and control other organizations.
It was, however, clearly passe by 1960.
Only somebody as ideologically naive as Oswald could have thought it
was important.
Which . . . I guess, is a way of saying Hoover didn't change with the
times.
>> I would like Blackburst's opinion on this.
>>
>> I do know that an operation called BRILAB was in place.
>Essentially until the 1957 Appalachian conference he did almost
>nothing, but poured gobs into bank robberies and espionage rings.
>But on the other hand I'm always open to discussion and being made
>aware of facts previously unknown.
I've heard the claim that he pretty much left the mob alone because he
feared the Bureau would become corrupted.
The mob certainly had the potential (money, for example) to corrupt
the FBI, which communists and bank robbers didn't have.
>> >I find the comment about it being okay to smear the right; that's a
>> >very funny joke until you look at the heap of ruined lives from the
>> >result of the smears of HUAC, McCarthy, and, yes, the FBI.
>> >There's plenty of guilt to go around.
>>
>> But it's not OK to attack somebody for being *homosexual* if they are
>> on the left.
>> It's OK to attack somebody for being homosexual if they are on the
>> right.
>I take it you have somebody in mind (the media?) as I certainly never
>thought it okay no matter what.
I remember one pro-Alger Hiss documentary that attacked Whittaker
Chambers as being homosexual.
>Before the dreaded "politically correct" movement occured, homosexuals
>were essentially tormented, and included among the tormenters were
>plenty of right-wingers (the FBI for starters).
>Now they're accepted - surely that's an improvement.
>Dick Armey calls Barney Frank "Barney Fag" - there's an example of a
>right-winger name calling a gay person.
>There's no monopoly on virtue (to quote Al Haig) by the idealogical
>camps on this issue, though I'm guessing the "attacking" by the left
>is over hypocrisy, not sexual preferences.
You've got to be careful of that claim. There is nothing
"hypocritical" about a homosexual being a Republican or opposing gay
marriage (about 25% do oppose gay marriage).
Outspokenly condemning homosexuality while practicing it would indeed
by hypocritical.
>Perhaps that's a bit subtle.
>>
>> >I think J. Edger quickly figured out that all he had to do was put
>> >together a case against LHO that was convincing and his work would be
>> >done - see Odio, Tague, asking Ruby's mob contacts if Ruby was
>> >connected with the mob (they said no - can you imagine?), Hosty's
>> >note, withholding the Milteer information from the WC, withholding the
>> >Trifficante allegation, and on and on and on.
>>
>> That's the standard mantra, but much of it is bogus.
>>
>> The FBI, for example, established that Milteer was in Quitman, GA at
>> the time of the assassination. That made him a person of no real
>> interest.
>My understanding is that the Warren Commission was to independently
>investigate, not just accept the FBI at face value, as, for example,
>the SBT theory.
The FBI didn't come up with the SBT.
In fact, conspiracists now loudly tout that the FBI said three shots
three hits.
The FBI produced a lot of the raw material for the WC, but the WC drew
its own conclusions.
>So my point is, did the FBI inform the Warren Commission that a
>fanatical racist was tape recorded discussing JFK's assassination by a
>rifle from an office building (along with the "they'll pick somebody
>up just to throw the public off" comment) a few weeks before it
>actually occured?
The Milteer story did make it to (IIRC) the Secret Service.
The FBI established that Milteer was in Quitman, GA at the time of the
assassination.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/milteer.htm
>Perhaps they did - I would be most interested in knowing that.
>As for being of no real interest, my confidence in the due diligence
>of the fabled FBI concerning the JFK assassination remains rather
>low.
Please check out my essay above.
>> >The funny thing is.....had they investigated with any due diligence,
>> >they still might have found that LHO did it.
>> >But they didn't and here we are.
>> >J. Edger Hoover - a great guy to catch bank robbers. Good for cracking
>> >espionage rings.
>> >And that's about it.
>>
>> That's not trivial.
>Agreed. But as we moved into a new era of civil rights, he became
>outdated.
True enough.
>And besides, he was also a noted blackmailer of congressmen and
>Presidents, at least in my opinion.
I think the case was a bit more subtle. He would "helpfully" call up
officials to inform them that something dirty was going around about
them.
And he probably added that it would be bad if it got out.
I don't think he directly threatened any of them. But I'm sure they
were (1.) grateful for the information, and (2.) then forever aware
that he had the information.
>> But like most great historical figures, Hoover had his faults, and
>> some were very large.
>>
>> But then King has his faults too.
>Sure. It is only on Civil Rights that MLK trumps JEH.
You could also argue that while King's faults were in the area of
personal morality (serial adultery, plagiarizing a large part of his
doctoral dissertation), Hoover was guilty of misusing an entire agency
of the United States government.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
jbarge
> On 5 Feb 2009 23:26:30 -0500, jbarge <anjba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 4, 10:55 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> >> On 4 Feb 2009 22:46:34 -0500, jbarge <anjba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >On Feb 4, 12:41 am, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> >> >> On 4 Feb 2009 00:41:18 -0500, geovult...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> The CPUSA was not "nonexistent" in the 30s. In fact, it was a
> powerful force in leftist politics, mostly because of its ability to
> manipulate and control other organizations.
>
> It was, however, clearly passe by 1960.
American Communist party's strength - he used it for Congressional
funding, to keep in good with the right, to make him "indispensable",
and quite frankly he lied (which is common enough for political
figures, I suppose).
But it is interesting to go back and read how RFK and JFK attempted to
expose this aspect of Hoover at the time.
> Only somebody as ideologically naive as Oswald could have thought it
> was important.
>
> I've heard the claim that he pretty much left the mob alone because he
> feared the Bureau would become corrupted.
also simply prefered chasing leftists.
>
>
> I remember one pro-Alger Hiss documentary that attacked Whittaker
> Chambers as being homosexual.
events, then there's no shortage of poor behaivor.
My point was there's enough of it already to tar both sides of the
political spectrum - I'll stick to that.
>
> You've got to be careful of that claim. There is nothing
> "hypocritical" about a homosexual being a Republican or opposing gay
> marriage (about 25% do oppose gay marriage).
>
> Outspokenly condemning homosexuality while practicing it would indeed
> by hypocritical.
believe he falls into that category.
> >My understanding is that the Warren Commission was to independently
> >investigate, not just accept the FBI at face value, as, for example,
> >the SBT theory.
>
> The FBI didn't come up with the SBT.
findings but the WC was to investigate and correct if need be.
>
> In fact, conspiracists now loudly tout that the FBI said three shots
> three hits.
>
> The FBI produced a lot of the raw material for the WC, but the WC drew
> its own conclusions.
>
> >So my point is, did the FBI inform the Warren Commission that a
> >fanatical racist was tape recorded discussing JFK's assassination by a
> >rifle from an office building (along with the "they'll pick somebody
> >up just to throw the public off" comment) a few weeks before it
> >actually occured?
>
> The Milteer story did make it to (IIRC) the Secret Service.
>
> The FBI established that Milteer was in Quitman, GA at the time of the
> assassination.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/milteer.htm
>
> >Perhaps they did - I would be most interested in knowing that.
> >As for being of no real interest, my confidence in the due diligence
> >of the fabled FBI concerning the JFK assassination remains rather
> >low.
>
> Please check out my essay above.
I did weeks ago - most impressive.
The Secret Service sent "summaries" of various things to the Warren
Commission - I read that an informant indentified a specific Castro
bad guy as being involved in 11/22/1963 and they put it in a summary.
So if the FBI passed it along, then in fact they did what they should
have.
Though check out the Aleman-Trifficante story, whereupon a year before
Dealy Plaza Jose Alemen informed a living breathing FBI agent that
Santos said JFK would be "hit".
The FBI forwarded by Air Tel to SOG, where it vanishes into thin air.
>
> >And besides, he was also a noted blackmailer of congressmen and
> >Presidents, at least in my opinion.
>
> I think the case was a bit more subtle. He would "helpfully" call up
> officials to inform them that something dirty was going around about
> them.
>
> And he probably added that it would be bad if it got out.
>
> I don't think he directly threatened any of them. But I'm sure they
> were (1.) grateful for the information, and (2.) then forever aware
> that he had the information.
Ah well, one man's blackmail is another man's "helpfulness" - I stand
by my definition but there's room for honest disagreement.
> >> But like most great historical figures, Hoover had his faults, and
> >> some were very large.
>
> >> But then King has his faults too.
> >Sure. It is only on Civil Rights that MLK trumps JEH.
>
> You could also argue that while King's faults were in the area of
> personal morality (serial adultery, plagiarizing a large part of his
> doctoral dissertation), Hoover was guilty of misusing an entire agency
> of the United States government.
Yes, and you know what - we all have flaws.
It just comes down to the nature, and the intent or motivation of
acting them out.
By 1961, ol J. Edger was a hinderance the American Dream, not a
facilitator, but no one could dislodge him.
> .John
> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm-
Anthony Marsh
There is nothing unusual about Republicans being homosexuals and
hypocritically attacking homosexuality. There is nothing unusual about
homosexuals putting homosexuals in concentration camps.
> Outspokenly condemning homosexuality while practicing it would indeed
> by hypocritical.
>
The list is long. Mostly Republican.
>
>> Perhaps that's a bit subtle.
>>>> I think J. Edger quickly figured out that all he had to do was put
>>>> together a case against LHO that was convincing and his work would be
>>>> done - see Odio, Tague, asking Ruby's mob contacts if Ruby was
>>>> connected with the mob (they said no - can you imagine?), Hosty's
>>>> note, withholding the Milteer information from the WC, withholding the
>>>> Trifficante allegation, and on and on and on.
>>> That's the standard mantra, but much of it is bogus.
>>>
>>> The FBI, for example, established that Milteer was in Quitman, GA at
>>> the time of the assassination. That made him a person of no real
>>> interest.
>> My understanding is that the Warren Commission was to independently
>> investigate, not just accept the FBI at face value, as, for example,
>> the SBT theory.
>
> The FBI didn't come up with the SBT.
>
> In fact, conspiracists now loudly tout that the FBI said three shots
> three hits.
>
> The FBI produced a lot of the raw material for the WC, but the WC drew
> its own conclusions.
>
Such as the SBT, which the FBI thought was stupid.
John McAdams
Oops! I should have said "extremely critical of Hoover."
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
<black...@aol.com> wrote:
I wrote a rather tough review of David Kaiser's book:
http://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/files/road_to_nowhere.pdf
. . . but one good thing about it is that he is honest about the
excesses of Bobby.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
Quite predictable that the only thing you like is when Liberals are
attacked.
> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
gwmcc...@earthlink.net
my reply to be posted. But I see no relevance to the Kennedy assassination
anywhere in this thread):
<< But it's not OK to attack somebody for being *homosexual* if they are
on the left. It's OK to attack somebody for being homosexual if they are
on the right. Politically correct double standard. >>
This is ridiculous.
I guess it's possible you are confused by the "outing" of right-wing
homosexual hypocrites (often by left-wing gays) or the jokes by the
likes of Letterman at the expense of such exemplars of public morality
as Larry "Wide Stance" Craig.
But as a card-carrying American leftist (that would be my business
card, at The Nation), I can assure you that the only true, Central
Committee-authorized (that's a joke, do please note) Politically
Correct line is that malice toward someone because of sexual
preference is wrong, retrogressive and just plain stoopid.
The Log Cabin Republicans notwithstanding, it's clear that such an
attitude is less prevalent on the right.
Sandy
John McAdams
>Somebody in the year 2009 actually wrote this (and will no doubt not allow
>my reply to be posted. But I see no relevance to the Kennedy assassination
>anywhere in this thread):
It started with an attack on J. Edgar Hoover. Check the "Subject"
header.
>
><< But it's not OK to attack somebody for being *homosexual* if they are
>on the left. It's OK to attack somebody for being homosexual if they are
>on the right. Politically correct double standard. >>
>
>This is ridiculous.
>I guess it's possible you are confused by the "outing" of right-wing
>homosexual hypocrites (often by left-wing gays) or the jokes by the
>likes of Letterman at the expense of such exemplars of public morality
>as Larry "Wide Stance" Craig.
See?
You are making my point. You hate people like Craig because he's a
Republican.
As for "outing," would you deny that this is vicious and hateful?
You seem to think that any homosexual is supposed to be a liberal
Democrat, and if he's a Republican that makes him a "hypocrite."
And being a hypocrite it's OK to attack him.
You have made my point.
>But as a card-carrying American leftist (that would be my business
>card, at The Nation), I can assure you that the only true, Central
>Committee-authorized (that's a joke, do please note) Politically
>Correct line is that malice toward someone because of sexual
>preference is wrong, retrogressive and just plain stoopid.
>The Log Cabin Republicans notwithstanding, it's clear that such an
>attitude is less prevalent on the right.
>
Malice toward someone because of Christian religious views is wrong,
but extremely prevalent on the left.
.John
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
gwmcc...@earthlink.net
> On 25 Feb 2009 22:44:10 -0500, gwmccros...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> >Somebody in the year 2009 actually wrote this (and will no doubt not allow
> >my reply to be posted. But I see no relevance to the Kennedy assassination
> >anywhere in this thread):
>
> It started with an attack on J. Edgar Hoover. Check the "Subject"
> header.
>
I know that! Heavens.
The subject header was an implicit attack on homosexuals! You let it pass.
What a fine level of discourse we're maintaining here. Unless someone can
show how Hoover's alleged foibles (cross-dressing?) had some relevance to
the (ha ha) "question" of Who Shot Kennedy, I will maintain that this
thread is irrelevant, and vicious to boot.
>
> ><< But it's not OK to attack somebody for being *homosexual* if they are
> >on the left. It's OK to attack somebody for being homosexual if they are
> >on the right. Politically correct double standard. >>
>
> >This is ridiculous.
> >I guess it's possible you are confused by the "outing" of right-wing
> >homosexual hypocrites (often by left-wing gays) or the jokes by the
> >likes of Letterman at the expense of such exemplars of public morality
> >as Larry "Wide Stance" Craig.
>
> See?
>
> You are making my point. You hate people like Craig because he's a
> Republican.
That would really be silly. I hate hypocrisy in Democrats too. And I don't
"hate" Craig. I don't know the man. I think he's a bit of a joke, but
"hate" would be too strong a word.
>
> As for "outing," would you deny that this is vicious and hateful?
Politicians and public figures who vote against the rights of sexual
minorities and live a lie deserve to be " outed."
Nothin' personal!
If a politician hates himself for being gay, he might regard it as
hateful. That's only his problem.
Me. I don't mind if he's gay at all. Might make him more likable,
actually.
> You seem to think that any homosexual is supposed to be a liberal
> Democrat, and if he's a Republican that makes him a "hypocrite."
Wow, that's quite a tortuous misreading. Not what I meant, and not
what I said.
He's a hypocrite if he persecutes other people for things he does
himself.
You don't agree? That's just the definition of hypocrisy.
Such people in positions of power, who abuse that power, are the only
proper targets of "outing."
Now, I might not find "outing" to my own taste, I might not engage in
it myself, I might regard it as beneath me... but even if it is
"vicious," "outing" is simply *not* attacking someone "for being gay,"
as you alleged.
It's attacking them for *lying* about it.
That's the distinction I was trying to draw for you. And it's not a
mere nuance, as difficult as it may be for you to see the difference.
>
> And being a hypocrite it's OK to attack him.
It's okay to attack his hypocrisy. Of course it is. Are you kidding?
Not the fact that he's gay (big deal) or, say, likes country music or,
I don't know, parts his hair funny...
>
> You have made my point.
You have not even given an indication of understanding *my* point.
>
> >But as a card-carrying American leftist (that would be my business
> >card, at The Nation), I can assure you that the only true, Central
> >Committee-authorized (that's a joke, do please note) Politically
> >Correct line is that malice toward someone because of sexual
> >preference is wrong, retrogressive and just plain stoopid.
> >The Log Cabin Republicans notwithstanding, it's clear that such an
> >attitude is less prevalent on the right.
>
> Malice toward someone because of Christian religious views is wrong,
> but extremely prevalent on the left.
Sez you! Yet I've known lots of righteous *Christian* leftists! Go
figger.
I rather think the only way to go is "Hate the nonsense, love the poor
sap who believes it."
(If I have to spell out the analogy, that's like: "Hate the sin, love
the sinner." )
Sandy
John McAdams
>On Feb 25, 10:50 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>> On 25 Feb 2009 22:44:10 -0500, gwmccros...@earthlink.net wrote:
>>
>> >Somebody in the year 2009 actually wrote this (and will no doubt not allow
>> >my reply to be posted. But I see no relevance to the Kennedy assassination
>> >anywhere in this thread):
>>
>> It started with an attack on J. Edgar Hoover. Check the "Subject"
>> header.
>>
>
>I know that! Heavens.
>
>The subject header was an implicit attack on homosexuals! You let it pass.
Right, because I know politically correct people think it's OK to
attack homosexuals if they are on the political right.
And of course, that turned out to be a correct assumption.
>What a fine level of discourse we're maintaining here. Unless someone can
>show how Hoover's alleged foibles (cross-dressing?) had some relevance to
>the (ha ha) "question" of Who Shot Kennedy, I will maintain that this
>thread is irrelevant, and vicious to boot.
>
Since Hoover was so central to the investigation of the assassination,
we moderators pretty much allow it to be open season on him.
>>
>> ><< But it's not OK to attack somebody for being *homosexual* if they are
>> >on the left. It's OK to attack somebody for being homosexual if they are
>> >on the right. Politically correct double standard. >>
>>
>> >This is ridiculous.
>> >I guess it's possible you are confused by the "outing" of right-wing
>> >homosexual hypocrites (often by left-wing gays) or the jokes by the
>> >likes of Letterman at the expense of such exemplars of public morality
>> >as Larry "Wide Stance" Craig.
>>
>> See?
>>
>> You are making my point. You hate people like Craig because he's a
>> Republican.
>
>That would really be silly. I hate hypocrisy in Democrats too. And I don't
>"hate" Craig. I don't know the man. I think he's a bit of a joke, but
>"hate" would be too strong a word.
>
>
>>
>> As for "outing," would you deny that this is vicious and hateful?
>
>Politicians and public figures who vote against the rights of sexual
>minorities and live a lie deserve to be " outed."
>Nothin' personal!
But people disagree on the "rights of sexual minorities."
You think if a gay guy disagrees with *you* he deserves to be outed.
Basically, this is an orthodoxy test.
Vote the gay orthodoxy, or we will punish you.
>If a politician hates himself for being gay, he might regard it as
>hateful. That's only his problem.
>Me. I don't mind if he's gay at all. Might make him more likable,
>actually.
In the 2000 and 2008 election exit polls, about a quarter of gays and
lesbians voted Republican.
Also, about a quarter said they oppose gay marriage.
Is this an opinion you think they should not be allowed to have?
Do they deserve to be punished for it?
>
>
>> You seem to think that any homosexual is supposed to be a liberal
>> Democrat, and if he's a Republican that makes him a "hypocrite."
>
>Wow, that's quite a tortuous misreading. Not what I meant, and not
>what I said.
>He's a hypocrite if he persecutes other people for things he does
>himself.
"Persecutes?"
You are a leftist who views any disagreement with the gay lobby as
"persecution."
But there is legitimate disagreement about things like gay marriage.
You need to be tolerant of that disagreement.
>You don't agree? That's just the definition of hypocrisy.
See above.
>Such people in positions of power, who abuse that power, are the only
>proper targets of "outing."
Again, you consider it an "abuse" if they don't vote the way you want.
You need to tolerate disagreement with your position -- even from
gays.
>Now, I might not find "outing" to my own taste, I might not engage in
>it myself, I might regard it as beneath me... but even if it is
>"vicious," "outing" is simply *not* attacking someone "for being gay,"
>as you alleged.
Yes it is.
If you are straight, and vote against the gay lobby, you aren't
punished.
If you are gay, and vote against the gay lobby, they are going to
punish you.
>It's attacking them for *lying* about it.
You mean saying "I'm straight" when in fact they are homosexual?
That's never the issue.
>That's the distinction I was trying to draw for you. And it's not a
>mere nuance, as difficult as it may be for you to see the difference.
>
What I see is intolerance of gays who don't vote the way you want them
to.
>>
>> And being a hypocrite it's OK to attack him.
>
>It's okay to attack his hypocrisy. Of course it is. Are you kidding?
It's not hypocritical to be gay and vote against gay marriage, any
more than it's hypocritical to be rich and vote for Obama.
>Not the fact that he's gay (big deal) or, say, likes country music or,
>I don't know, parts his hair funny...
>
>
>>
>> You have made my point.
>
>You have not even given an indication of understanding *my* point.
>
I know your position exactly.
You haven't thought through your own position.
>
>>
>> >But as a card-carrying American leftist (that would be my business
>> >card, at The Nation), I can assure you that the only true, Central
>> >Committee-authorized (that's a joke, do please note) Politically
>> >Correct line is that malice toward someone because of sexual
>> >preference is wrong, retrogressive and just plain stoopid.
>> >The Log Cabin Republicans notwithstanding, it's clear that such an
>> >attitude is less prevalent on the right.
>>
>> Malice toward someone because of Christian religious views is wrong,
>> but extremely prevalent on the left.
>
>Sez you! Yet I've known lots of righteous *Christian* leftists! Go
>figger.
>I rather think the only way to go is "Hate the nonsense, love the poor
>sap who believes it."
>(If I have to spell out the analogy, that's like: "Hate the sin, love
>the sinner." )
>
Your leftist buddies rarely love people who disagree with them.
In fact, they usually hate them. Look at the aftermath of Proposition
8 in California.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
gwmcc...@earthlink.net
> On 26 Feb 2009 01:01:21 -0500, gwmccros...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> >On Feb 25, 10:50 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> >> On 25 Feb 2009 22:44:10 -0500, gwmccros...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> >> >Somebody in the year 2009 actually wrote this (and will no doubt not allow
> >> >my reply to be posted. But I see no relevance to the Kennedy assassination
> >> >anywhere in this thread):
>
> >> It started with an attack on J. Edgar Hoover. Check the "Subject"
> >> header.
>
> >I know that! Heavens.
>
> >The subject header was an implicit attack on homosexuals! You let it pass.
>
> Right, because I know politically correct people think it's OK to
> attack homosexuals if they are on the political right.
>
> And of course, that turned out to be a correct assumption.
On the contrary.
I say the subject line of this thread displays bigotry, and I don't
care that its target is the right-winger Hoover.
>
> >What a fine level of discourse we're maintaining here. Unless someone can
> >show how Hoover's alleged foibles (cross-dressing?) had some relevance to
> >the (ha ha) "question" of Who Shot Kennedy, I will maintain that this
> >thread is irrelevant, and vicious to boot.
>
> Since Hoover was so central to the investigation of the assassination,
> we moderators pretty much allow it to be open season on him.
>
>
Of course. Certain language, however, is deemed appropriate only for
the unmoderated list.
>
>
>
> >> ><< But it's not OK to attack somebody for being *homosexual* if they are
> >> >on the left. It's OK to attack somebody for being homosexual if they are
> >> >on the right. Politically correct double standard. >>
>
> >> >This is ridiculous.
> >> >I guess it's possible you are confused by the "outing" of right-wing
> >> >homosexual hypocrites (often by left-wing gays) or the jokes by the
> >> >likes of Letterman at the expense of such exemplars of public morality
> >> >as Larry "Wide Stance" Craig.
>
> >> See?
>
> >> You are making my point. You hate people like Craig because he's a
> >> Republican.
>
> >That would really be silly. I hate hypocrisy in Democrats too. And I don't
> >"hate" Craig. I don't know the man. I think he's a bit of a joke, but
> >"hate" would be too strong a word.
>
> >> As for "outing," would you deny that this is vicious and hateful?
>
> >Politicians and public figures who vote against the rights of sexual
> >minorities and live a lie deserve to be " outed."
> >Nothin' personal!
>
> But people disagree on the "rights of sexual minorities."
>
> You think if a gay guy disagrees with *you* he deserves to be outed.
>
> Basically, this is an orthodoxy test.
>
> Vote the gay orthodoxy, or we will punish you.
Not that it matters, but I'm not gay, nor have I "outed" anyone
myself.
I was drawing a distinction between this practice (often done by gays
themselves) and attacking someone *for being* homosexual, which the
subject line of the thread implicitly does.
>
> >If a politician hates himself for being gay, he might regard it as
> >hateful. That's only his problem.
> >Me. I don't mind if he's gay at all. Might make him more likable,
> >actually.
>
> In the 2000 and 2008 election exit polls, about a quarter of gays and
> lesbians voted Republican.
>
> Also, about a quarter said they oppose gay marriage.
>
> Is this an opinion you think they should not be allowed to have?
>
Of course not, but who would even say a thing like that?
I would go further.
It's a perfectly reasonable opinion, if they view marriage as a
religious sacrament.
I'm an atheist, yawwwwwn, it seems a little silly.
Civil unions should take care of all the real-world contingencies.
Trying to "liberate" the church just seems an oxymoronic endeavor.
But it doesn't bother me in the *least* if gays do get married.
> Do they deserve to be punished for it?
>
?!
>
>
> >> You seem to think that any homosexual is supposed to be a liberal
> >> Democrat, and if he's a Republican that makes him a "hypocrite."
>
> >Wow, that's quite a tortuous misreading. Not what I meant, and not
> >what I said.
> >He's a hypocrite if he persecutes other people for things he does
> >himself.
>
> "Persecutes?"
>
That's the perception of the soi-disant persecuted. It's not meant to
be an objective assessment. I'm trying to put myself inside their
heads.
> You are a leftist who views any disagreement with the gay lobby as
> "persecution."
>
Obviously not.
Everybody jumps to conclusions, now and then.
> But there is legitimate disagreement about things like gay marriage.
>
> You need to be tolerant of that disagreement.
>
> >You don't agree? That's just the definition of hypocrisy.
>
> See above.
>
> >Such people in positions of power, who abuse that power, are the only
> >proper targets of "outing."
>
> Again, you consider it an "abuse" if they don't vote the way you want.
>
> You need to tolerate disagreement with your position -- even from
> gays.
>
> >Now, I might not find "outing" to my own taste, I might not engage in
> >it myself, I might regard it as beneath me... but even if it is
> >"vicious," "outing" is simply *not* attacking someone "for being gay,"
> >as you alleged.
>
> Yes it is.
>
> If you are straight, and vote against the gay lobby, you aren't
> punished.
>
> If you are gay, and vote against the gay lobby, they are going to
> punish you.
>
> >It's attacking them for *lying* about it.
>
> You mean saying "I'm straight" when in fact they are homosexual?
>
> That's never the issue.
>
No, it's more complicated than that, of course.
But I'm admittedly no expert on the specifics of any of the instances
of "outing" from the left.
> >That's the distinction I was trying to draw for you. And it's not a
> >mere nuance, as difficult as it may be for you to see the difference.
>
> What I see is intolerance of gays who don't vote the way you want them
> to.
>
>
> >> And being a hypocrite it's OK to attack him.
>
> >It's okay to attack his hypocrisy. Of course it is. Are you kidding?
>
> It's not hypocritical to be gay and vote against gay marriage, any
> more than it's hypocritical to be rich and vote for Obama.
>
Of course not.
I agree entirely.
> >Not the fact that he's gay (big deal) or, say, likes country music or,
> >I don't know, parts his hair funny...
>
> >> You have made my point.
>
> >You have not even given an indication of understanding *my* point.
>
> I know your position exactly.
>
Thought you did, didn't you?
> You haven't thought through your own position.
>
>
>
>
> >> >But as a card-carrying American leftist (that would be my business
> >> >card, at The Nation), I can assure you that the only true, Central
> >> >Committee-authorized (that's a joke, do please note) Politically
> >> >Correct line is that malice toward someone because of sexual
> >> >preference is wrong, retrogressive and just plain stoopid.
> >> >The Log Cabin Republicans notwithstanding, it's clear that such an
> >> >attitude is less prevalent on the right.
>
> >> Malice toward someone because of Christian religious views is wrong,
> >> but extremely prevalent on the left.
>
> >Sez you! Yet I've known lots of righteous *Christian* leftists! Go
> >figger.
> >I rather think the only way to go is "Hate the nonsense, love the poor
> >sap who believes it."
> >(If I have to spell out the analogy, that's like: "Hate the sin, love
> >the sinner." )
>
> Your leftist buddies rarely love people who disagree with them.
>
> In fact, they usually hate them. Look at the aftermath of Proposition
> 8 in California.
>
Well, I don't know anything about that. It's not my beat.
It does seem like there are more important things to get all het up
about (on both sides) than gay marriage.
I actually know a gay leftist or two who also feels this way.
sandy
> .John
> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
>On Feb 26, 1:14 am, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>> On 26 Feb 2009 01:01:21 -0500, gwmccros...@earthlink.net wrote:
>>
>> >On Feb 25, 10:50 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>> >> On 25 Feb 2009 22:44:10 -0500, gwmccros...@earthlink.net wrote:
>>
>> >> >Somebody in the year 2009 actually wrote this (and will no doubt not allow
>> >> >my reply to be posted. But I see no relevance to the Kennedy assassination
>> >> >anywhere in this thread):
>>
>> >> It started with an attack on J. Edgar Hoover. Check the "Subject"
>> >> header.
>>
>> >I know that! Heavens.
>>
>> >The subject header was an implicit attack on homosexuals! You let it pass.
>>
>> Right, because I know politically correct people think it's OK to
>> attack homosexuals if they are on the political right.
>>
>> And of course, that turned out to be a correct assumption.
>
>On the contrary.
>I say the subject line of this thread displays bigotry, and I don't
>care that its target is the right-winger Hoover.
>
That statement lacks credibility.
Below, you say that Republican homosexuals, especially those that
might (for example) vote against gay marriage, deserve to be "outed,"
although you would not do it.
>
>>
>> >What a fine level of discourse we're maintaining here. Unless someone can
>> >show how Hoover's alleged foibles (cross-dressing?) had some relevance to
>> >the (ha ha) "question" of Who Shot Kennedy, I will maintain that this
>> >thread is irrelevant, and vicious to boot.
>>
>> Since Hoover was so central to the investigation of the assassination,
>> we moderators pretty much allow it to be open season on him.
>>
>>
>Of course. Certain language, however, is deemed appropriate only for
>the unmoderated list.
>>
But the poster didn't say that all homosexuals are "vicious racists."
He only said that Hoover was a "vicious racist."
Of course *some* homosexuals have been vicious racists, although I
don't think Hoover was homosexual -- or at least there is no evidence
that he was.
>>
>>
>> >> ><< But it's not OK to attack somebody for being *homosexual* if they are
>> >> >on the left. It's OK to attack somebody for being homosexual if they are
>> >> >on the right. Politically correct double standard. >>
>>
>> >> >This is ridiculous.
>> >> >I guess it's possible you are confused by the "outing" of right-wing
>> >> >homosexual hypocrites (often by left-wing gays) or the jokes by the
>> >> >likes of Letterman at the expense of such exemplars of public morality
>> >> >as Larry "Wide Stance" Craig.
>>
>> >> See?
>>
>> >> You are making my point. You hate people like Craig because he's a
>> >> Republican.
>>
>> >That would really be silly. I hate hypocrisy in Democrats too. And I don't
>> >"hate" Craig. I don't know the man. I think he's a bit of a joke, but
>> >"hate" would be too strong a word.
>>
>> >> As for "outing," would you deny that this is vicious and hateful?
>>
>> >Politicians and public figures who vote against the rights of sexual
>> >minorities and live a lie deserve to be " outed."
>> >Nothin' personal!
>>
>> But people disagree on the "rights of sexual minorities."
>>
>> You think if a gay guy disagrees with *you* he deserves to be outed.
>>
>> Basically, this is an orthodoxy test.
>>
>> Vote the gay orthodoxy, or we will punish you.
>Not that it matters, but I'm not gay, nor have I "outed" anyone
>myself.
Good that you haven't outed anybody.
But isn't that like saying "I'm not in the Klan, and I've never
lynched a Negro," when you have just been going on about how some
blacks are "asking for it?"
>I was drawing a distinction between this practice (often done by gays
>themselves) and attacking someone *for being* homosexual, which the
>subject line of the thread implicitly does.
>
Again, it's generally acceptable (not that it should be) to attack
homosexuals on the political right.
And note that the original poster seemed (the whole thing wasn't
clear) to be saying that Hoover was some sort of hypocrite being gay
while pretending to be an exemplar of conventional morality.
In short, an argument similar to the one you have been making.
(Although not expressed very clearly.)
>
>
>>
>> >If a politician hates himself for being gay, he might regard it as
>> >hateful. That's only his problem.
>> >Me. I don't mind if he's gay at all. Might make him more likable,
>> >actually.
>>
>> In the 2000 and 2008 election exit polls, about a quarter of gays and
>> lesbians voted Republican.
>>
>> Also, about a quarter said they oppose gay marriage.
>>
>> Is this an opinion you think they should not be allowed to have?
>>
>
>Of course not, but who would even say a thing like that?
People who want to out gay politicians because the vote against the
gay agenda.
>I would go further.
>It's a perfectly reasonable opinion, if they view marriage as a
>religious sacrament.
>I'm an atheist, yawwwwwn, it seems a little silly.
>Civil unions should take care of all the real-world contingencies.
>Trying to "liberate" the church just seems an oxymoronic endeavor.
>
>But it doesn't bother me in the *least* if gays do get married.
>
>> Do they deserve to be punished for it?
>>
>?!
>
>
>>
>>
>> >> You seem to think that any homosexual is supposed to be a liberal
>> >> Democrat, and if he's a Republican that makes him a "hypocrite."
>>
>> >Wow, that's quite a tortuous misreading. Not what I meant, and not
>> >what I said.
>> >He's a hypocrite if he persecutes other people for things he does
>> >himself.
>>
>> "Persecutes?"
>>
>That's the perception of the soi-disant persecuted. It's not meant to
>be an objective assessment. I'm trying to put myself inside their
>heads.
>
OK, but put yourself inside the head of a Klansman, and blacks deserve
pretty nasty treatment.
Not that doing that is necessarily bad. But it is a study of
pathology.
>> You are a leftist who views any disagreement with the gay lobby as
>> "persecution."
>>
>
>Obviously not.
>
>Everybody jumps to conclusions, now and then.
>
True, but when you used "persecuted" for honest disagreements about
policy, you did push me in the direction of that conclusion.
>
>
>> But there is legitimate disagreement about things like gay marriage.
>>
>> You need to be tolerant of that disagreement.
>>
>> >You don't agree? That's just the definition of hypocrisy.
>>
>> See above.
>>
>> >Such people in positions of power, who abuse that power, are the only
>> >proper targets of "outing."
>>
>> Again, you consider it an "abuse" if they don't vote the way you want.
>>
>
>> You need to tolerate disagreement with your position -- even from
>> gays.
>>
>> >Now, I might not find "outing" to my own taste, I might not engage in
>> >it myself, I might regard it as beneath me... but even if it is
>> >"vicious," "outing" is simply *not* attacking someone "for being gay,"
>> >as you alleged.
>>
>> Yes it is.
>>
>> If you are straight, and vote against the gay lobby, you aren't
>> punished.
>>
>> If you are gay, and vote against the gay lobby, they are going to
>> punish you.
>>
>> >It's attacking them for *lying* about it.
>>
>> You mean saying "I'm straight" when in fact they are homosexual?
>>
>> That's never the issue.
>>
>No, it's more complicated than that, of course.
>But I'm admittedly no expert on the specifics of any of the instances
>of "outing" from the left.
>
OK. But I hope you agree that outing somebody because they don't vote
the way you want is a nasty thing to do.
>
>> >That's the distinction I was trying to draw for you. And it's not a
>> >mere nuance, as difficult as it may be for you to see the difference.
>>
>> What I see is intolerance of gays who don't vote the way you want them
>> to.
>>
>>
>> >> And being a hypocrite it's OK to attack him.
>>
>> >It's okay to attack his hypocrisy. Of course it is. Are you kidding?
>>
>> It's not hypocritical to be gay and vote against gay marriage, any
>> more than it's hypocritical to be rich and vote for Obama.
>>
>
>Of course not.
>I agree entirely.
>
OK, let's see if we actually disagree on anything.
Or maybe not, since I don't necessarily want to get involved in a long
thread.
>
>> >Not the fact that he's gay (big deal) or, say, likes country music or,
>> >I don't know, parts his hair funny...
>>
>> >> You have made my point.
>>
>> >You have not even given an indication of understanding *my* point.
>>
>> I know your position exactly.
>>
>
>Thought you did, didn't you?
>
Your rhetoric seemed to give pretty good clues.
>
>> You haven't thought through your own position.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >But as a card-carrying American leftist (that would be my business
>> >> >card, at The Nation), I can assure you that the only true, Central
>> >> >Committee-authorized (that's a joke, do please note) Politically
>> >> >Correct line is that malice toward someone because of sexual
>> >> >preference is wrong, retrogressive and just plain stoopid.
>> >> >The Log Cabin Republicans notwithstanding, it's clear that such an
>> >> >attitude is less prevalent on the right.
>>
>> >> Malice toward someone because of Christian religious views is wrong,
>> >> but extremely prevalent on the left.
>>
>> >Sez you! Yet I've known lots of righteous *Christian* leftists! Go
>> >figger.
>> >I rather think the only way to go is "Hate the nonsense, love the poor
>> >sap who believes it."
>> >(If I have to spell out the analogy, that's like: "Hate the sin, love
>> >the sinner." )
>>
>> Your leftist buddies rarely love people who disagree with them.
>>
>> In fact, they usually hate them. Look at the aftermath of Proposition
>> 8 in California.
>>
>
>Well, I don't know anything about that. It's not my beat.
>It does seem like there are more important things to get all het up
>about (on both sides) than gay marriage.
>I actually know a gay leftist or two who also feels this way.
>
I'd say that's a sensible thing to think.
Even without civil unions, a gay couple can get most of the things
that are defaults for married people: a will for inheritance, medical
power of attorney, joint ownership of property, etc.
They can even find an employer who will give all kinds of domestic
partner benefits, although I'm strongly against *forcing* employers to
treat gay couples the way they treat straight couples.
Actually, I'm not so hot on anybody forcing employers to give benefits
to even married straight partners.
Those things should be negotiated in a free market.
.John
--
Anthony Marsh
> On 26 Feb 2009 01:01:21 -0500, gwmcc...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
>> On Feb 25, 10:50 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>>> On 25 Feb 2009 22:44:10 -0500, gwmccros...@earthlink.net wrote:
>>>
>>>> Somebody in the year 2009 actually wrote this (and will no doubt not allow
>>>> my reply to be posted. But I see no relevance to the Kennedy assassination
>>>> anywhere in this thread):
>>> It started with an attack on J. Edgar Hoover. Check the "Subject"
>>> header.
>>>
>> I know that! Heavens.
>>
>> The subject header was an implicit attack on homosexuals! You let it pass.
>
> Right, because I know politically correct people think it's OK to
> attack homosexuals if they are on the political right.
>
No, it's not ok. It's just delicious fun to point out the hypocrisy.
I'd like to see that poll please.
> Is this an opinion you think they should not be allowed to have?
>
> Do they deserve to be punished for it?
>
>
>>
>>> You seem to think that any homosexual is supposed to be a liberal
>>> Democrat, and if he's a Republican that makes him a "hypocrite."
>> Wow, that's quite a tortuous misreading. Not what I meant, and not
>> what I said.
>> He's a hypocrite if he persecutes other people for things he does
>> himself.
>
> "Persecutes?"
>
> You are a leftist who views any disagreement with the gay lobby as
> "persecution."
>
> But there is legitimate disagreement about things like gay marriage.
>
> You need to be tolerant of that disagreement.
>
Yes, so we need to be tolerant of bigotry. And Nazis have a right to
spew their anti-Semitism, too.
>
>> You don't agree? That's just the definition of hypocrisy.
>
> See above.
>
>> Such people in positions of power, who abuse that power, are the only
>> proper targets of "outing."
>
> Again, you consider it an "abuse" if they don't vote the way you want.
>
> You need to tolerate disagreement with your position -- even from
> gays.
>
Pick any group you want and try to find 100% agreement in it.
>
>
>> Now, I might not find "outing" to my own taste, I might not engage in
>> it myself, I might regard it as beneath me... but even if it is
>> "vicious," "outing" is simply *not* attacking someone "for being gay,"
>> as you alleged.
>
> Yes it is.
>
> If you are straight, and vote against the gay lobby, you aren't
> punished.
>
> If you are gay, and vote against the gay lobby, they are going to
> punish you.
>
Hmm, could it be the hypocrisy which is being attacked? Like Larry Craig?
>
>
>> It's attacking them for *lying* about it.
>
> You mean saying "I'm straight" when in fact they are homosexual?
>
I think it's a little more than just that. It is not just the lying or
keep a secret. It is setting out to destroy other people's lives based
on the same perversions you share. Like Roy Cohn. Who spent his weekdays
spotting homosexuals to be attacked by McCarthy and spent his weekends
in homosexual orgies on Fire Island. And spent the last years of his
life dedicated to infecting thousands of boys with AIDS.
Anthony Marsh
> On Feb 25, 10:50 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>> On 25 Feb 2009 22:44:10 -0500, gwmccros...@earthlink.net wrote:
>>
>>> Somebody in the year 2009 actually wrote this (and will no doubt not allow
>>> my reply to be posted. But I see no relevance to the Kennedy assassination
>>> anywhere in this thread):
>> It started with an attack on J. Edgar Hoover. Check the "Subject"
>> header.
>>
>
> I know that! Heavens.
>
> The subject header was an implicit attack on homosexuals! You let it pass.
No. You seem to ignore the qualifiers. It is not an attack just because
he was a homosexual. It is an attack on the fact that he was a vicious
racist and a homosexual who abused his powers to destroy people's lives.
> What a fine level of discourse we're maintaining here. Unless someone can
> show how Hoover's alleged foibles (cross-dressing?) had some relevance to
> the (ha ha) "question" of Who Shot Kennedy, I will maintain that this
> thread is irrelevant, and vicious to boot.
>
Not my theory, but some people think that Hoover was part of a
homosexual cabal who assassinated Kennedy. They point to the amazing
coincidence that all the major suspects were homosexuals.
Anthony Marsh
> On Feb 9, 10:50 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> There is nothing unusual about Republicans being homosexuals and
>> hypocritically attacking homosexuality. There is nothing unusual about
>> homosexuals putting homosexuals in concentration camps.
>>
>>> Outspokenly condemning homosexuality while practicing it would indeed
>>> by hypocritical.
>> The list is long. Mostly Republican.
>
>
Ever read a newspaper or use Google? We have discussed many of the
examples here.
gwmcc...@earthlink.net
> On 26 Feb 2009 11:22:45 -0500, gwmccros...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> >On Feb 26, 1:14 am, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> >> On 26 Feb 2009 01:01:21 -0500, gwmccros...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> >> >On Feb 25, 10:50 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> >> >> On 25 Feb 2009 22:44:10 -0500, gwmccros...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> >> >> >Somebody in the year 2009 actually wrote this (and will no doubt not allow
> >> >> >my reply to be posted. But I see no relevance to the Kennedy assassination
> >> >> >anywhere in this thread):
>
> >> >> It started with an attack on J. Edgar Hoover. Check the "Subject"
> >> >> header.
>
> >> >I know that! Heavens.
>
> >> >The subject header was an implicit attack on homosexuals! You let it pass.
>
> >> Right, because I know politically correct people think it's OK to
> >> attack homosexuals if they are on the political right.
>
> >> And of course, that turned out to be a correct assumption.
>
> >On the contrary.
> >I say the subject line of this thread displays bigotry, and I don't
> >care that its target is the right-winger Hoover.
>
> That statement lacks credibility.
I find that comment pretty amazing.
The sentiment that homosexuality is on the same level as racism and
viciousness is aired by that subject line, no matter who the immediate
target is, and your strange excuse for letting it pass was the only
reason I wrote.
But you are always ready to sum somebody up on the basis of your
preconceived notions:
"So you're a leftist who...
and locutions of that nature.
>
> Below, you say that Republican homosexuals, especially those that
> might (for example) vote against gay marriage, deserve to be "outed,"
> although you would not do it.
>
Hypocrisy is hypocrisy. I also think Elliott Spitzer got what was
coming to him. And Jimmy Swaggart.
Outing of gays by gays is carried out on the presumption that they are
part of a somewhat ghettoized "community" and thus those who remain in the
closet are ipso facto collaborators with the oppressor. contributing to
the oppression. And "persecution" is indeed the word. The more power such
collaborators have in society, the more just it is deemed to expose their
hypocrisy, especially when they are supportive of politics that are
regarded as being contrary to the interests of that "community."
If you didn't think it should be, then you had a chance to make a
difference.
>
> And note that the original poster seemed (the whole thing wasn't
> clear) to be saying that Hoover was some sort of hypocrite being gay
> while pretending to be an exemplar of conventional morality.
>
> In short, an argument similar to the one you have been making.
"Racist vicious homosexual" says something about the poster's attitude
toward gays, IMHO.
>
> (Although not expressed very clearly.)
>
No, not a very articulate fellow.
But I thought *you* would know better.
I'm done with this, myself.
gwmcc...@earthlink.net
> Actually, I'm not so hot on anybody forcing employers to give benefits
> to even married straight partners.
>
> Those things should be negotiated in a free market.
>
Well, if you believe married people are "one flesh," as Genesis says,
shouldn't they have the same doctor?
Ha ha.
Sandy
gwmcc...@earthlink.net
> On 2/26/2009 1:01 AM, gwmccros...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> > On Feb 25, 10:50 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> >> On 25 Feb 2009 22:44:10 -0500, gwmccros...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> >>> Somebody in the year 2009 actually wrote this (and will no doubt not allow
> >>> my reply to be posted. But I see no relevance to the Kennedy assassination
> >>> anywhere in this thread):
> >> It started with an attack on J. Edgar Hoover. Check the "Subject"
> >> header.
>
> > I know that! Heavens.
>
> > The subject header was an implicit attack on homosexuals! You let it pass.
>
> No. You seem to ignore the qualifiers. It is not an attack just because
> he was a homosexual. It is an attack on the fact that he was a vicious
> racist and a homosexual who abused his powers to destroy people's lives.
The rhetorical effect was to put "vicious," "racist" and "homosexual" on
the same level. Which might just be bad writing, but such bad writing is
often an indication of, to put the best light on it, confused thinking.
Anthony Marsh
> On Feb 26, 8:22 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 2/26/2009 1:01 AM, gwmccros...@earthlink.net wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 25, 10:50 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>>>> On 25 Feb 2009 22:44:10 -0500, gwmccros...@earthlink.net wrote:
>>>>> Somebody in the year 2009 actually wrote this (and will no doubt not allow
>>>>> my reply to be posted. But I see no relevance to the Kennedy assassination
>>>>> anywhere in this thread):
>>>> It started with an attack on J. Edgar Hoover. Check the "Subject"
>>>> header.
>>> I know that! Heavens.
>>> The subject header was an implicit attack on homosexuals! You let it pass.
>> No. You seem to ignore the qualifiers. It is not an attack just because
>> he was a homosexual. It is an attack on the fact that he was a vicious
>> racist and a homosexual who abused his powers to destroy people's lives.
>
> The rhetorical effect was to put "vicious," "racist" and "homosexual" on
> the same level. Which might just be bad writing, but such bad writing is
> often an indication of, to put the best light on it, confused thinking.
>
That does not make sense grammatically. The adjectives describe the noun.
Substitute the word "man" for "homosexual" and the adjectives are just as
strong in describing the noun, but the noun "man" is not intended as a
perjorative, unless the subtext is added by a feminist condemning all men.
The use of the word "homosexual" is a reminder of his hypocrisy, which is
part of the attack.
gwmcc...@earthlink.net
> On 2/27/2009 8:17 PM, gwmccros...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 26, 8:22 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 2/26/2009 1:01 AM, gwmccros...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> >>> On Feb 25, 10:50 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> >>>> On 25 Feb 2009 22:44:10 -0500, gwmccros...@earthlink.net wrote:
> >>>>> Somebody in the year 2009 actually wrote this (and will no doubt not allow
> >>>>> my reply to be posted. But I see no relevance to the Kennedy assassination
> >>>>> anywhere in this thread):
> >>>> It started with an attack on J. Edgar Hoover. Check the "Subject"
> >>>> header.
> >>> I know that! Heavens.
> >>> The subject header was an implicit attack on homosexuals! You let it pass.
> >> No. You seem to ignore the qualifiers. It is not an attack just because
> >> he was a homosexual. It is an attack on the fact that he was a vicious
> >> racist and a homosexual who abused his powers to destroy people's lives.
>
> > The rhetorical effect was to put "vicious," "racist" and "homosexual" on
> > the same level. Which might just be bad writing, but such bad writing is
> > often an indication of, to put the best light on it, confused thinking.
>
> That does not make sense grammatically. The adjectives describe the noun.
> Substitute the word "man" for "homosexual" and the adjectives are just as
> strong in describing the noun, but the noun "man" is not intended as a
> perjorative, unless the subtext is added by a feminist condemning all men.
Analysis of strict grammatical construction does not exhaust
rhetorical effect.
We know Hoover is a "man"; adding the word would be redundant, and
thus intended for the sake of emphasis (if not just bad writing).
> The use of the word "homosexual" is a reminder of his hypocrisy, which is
> part of the attack.
>
In that case, "vicious racist hypocrite" would have been more to the
point... to say the least (unless one is expected to assume that a
vicious racist homosexual would by definition have to be a hypocrite).
/sandy
Anthony Marsh
I did not say "add" the word. I said substitute. Adding the word "man"
would then turn the word "homosexual" into another adjective. It is the
adjectives which are used to attack. Not the noun.
>> The use of the word "homosexual" is a reminder of his hypocrisy, which is
>> part of the attack.
>>
>
> In that case, "vicious racist hypocrite" would have been more to the
> point... to say the least (unless one is expected to assume that a
> vicious racist homosexual would by definition have to be a hypocrite).
>
Sure, if Hoover were really a black man then the racism would be
hypocritical. But I have not seen definitive evidence that Hoover was
really black. I have not used the word hypocritical about Hitler's
anti-Semitism, but I have pointed out the pattern of self-loathing when
Hitler may have been Jewish himself. There have been a few cases of blacks
denying they are black and enjoying enslaving blacks to put themselves
above suspicion, but those are very rare. So, hypocrite may have been a
better word to use, but then you'd need to define what he was a hypocrite
about. And the racism does not fit into that as easily.
> /sandy
>
>
>
gwmcc...@earthlink.net
Yes, I meant: adding the word man to "vicious" and "racist," which is
substituting it for "homosexual."