New Musicals You'd Like to See?
Newport
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Newport
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
stephen...@gmail.com
Newport wrote:
> THE HUMAN STAIN.
"On the Beach"
Stephen
bval...@aol.com
I Walked With a Zombie
The Seventh Victim
The 100 Dollar Misunderstanding
The Boss Is Crazy, Too
bval...@aol.com
Yeah, that would be a lot of fun.
"Are we dead, yet?
Do my arms feel like lead, yet?
Soon, I'll be throwing up blood
All life will be a dud
Have my open sores started to bleed, yet?"
Just like that, but for three hours.
THAT would be worth a hundred dollar ticket. Mmmmmmmm, boy.
bval...@aol.com
I wonder how long the left will be able to keep alive the fantasy that
the communists, (who murdered at the very least 100,000,000 souls -
some estimates put the number at a quarter of a billioin) weren't
really all that much of a fantasy?
Noel...@aol.com
a fantasy.
You have to make a separation - there are communist governments like
the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, etc. doing all sorts of evil things.
And then there are a small number of Americans who admired Marxist
philosophy.
The Front is about the persecution of the latter group, based on the
lame-brained (and still unproven) idea that writers were somehow
sneaking anti-American or Marxist messages into movies and television
in the 1950s.
Lionel Stander, in a movie, whistles a bit of The Internationale while
waiting for an elevator. Horrors! I bet that changed a lot of minds.
Newport
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
stephen...@gmail.com
It's called humour. Perhaps you can get someone to explain it to you.
Stephen
Jason T
(and, hell, just for the fun of it, democracy).
Jason T.
<bval...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1145028093....@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
stephen...@gmail.com
LOVE WILL TEAR US APART - the Joy Division jukebox musical.
Stephen
bval...@aol.com
It's called humour. Perhaps you can get someone to explain it to you.
>>>
Remember the discussion we had about "straw men"? Cutting out my joke,
then accusing me of not understanding humor is CLASSIC straw man
activity.
That being said, humour is to comedy what Velveeta is to cheese.
stephen...@gmail.com
bval...@aol.com wrote:
> > Yeah, that would be a lot of fun.
>
>
> It's called humour. Perhaps you can get someone to explain it to you.
> >>>
>
> Remember the discussion we had about "straw men"?
I don't remember a discussion. I remember the many, many posts in which
you've shown us that you quite like using them as a debating tactic -
never terribly successfully.
Stephen
bval...@aol.com
> Remember the discussion we had about "straw men"?
I don't remember a discussion.>>>
Agreed, you're really not much into discussions. Mostly, you present
lame insults and claim unearned victories.
stephen...@gmail.com
Not big on self-awareness, are you?
Stephen
Newport
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
bval...@aol.com
> lame insults and claim unearned victories.
>>>Not big on self-awareness, are you? >>>
Now, this is exactly what I was talking about - a splendid example of
the Stephen F. "insult": vague, self-satisfied, devoid of humor, and
above all, hypocritical. The motive of the insult is to cover up a
painful point (that the spelling nazi really didn't know what a "straw
man" is.)
bval...@aol.com
a fantasy.>>>>
There's no serious question that many member of the entertainment
industry were sympathtic to Stalin at the time.
>>>>You have to make a separation - there are communist governments like
the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, etc. doing all sorts of evil things.
And then there are a small number of Americans who admired Marxist
philosophy.>>>
In the same sense that I have to make a separation between Klan members
who burn churches, and those who sit home and quietly root on the
church burners because they also don't like black people.
>>>>The Front is about the persecution of the latter group, based on the
lame-brained (and still unproven) idea that writers were somehow
sneaking anti-American or Marxist messages into movies and television
in the 1950s.>>>
The Front is a two hour self back slap about the brave, brave men who
stood up for their rights to defend fascists. Nowhere was there the
slightest inkling that the other side were doing what they did for any
other reason than to be mean. Certainly, there wasn't a hint of the
reign of terror, the 20 - 80 million who died at the Soviet Union's
hands. Nope, the tragedy was that ten guys had their career cut back.
>>>>Lionel Stander, in a movie, whistles a bit of The Internationale while
waiting for an elevator. Horrors! I bet that changed a lot of
minds.>>>>
Did you ever read any of the Vernona documents?
bval...@aol.com
(and, hell, just for the fun of it, democracy).>>>>
No, the number is actually a lowball figure. It comes from "the Black
Book of Communism". It was written by two French communists, who set
out to record the glorious history of World Socialism. They were
horrified when research revealed the truth.
Mind you, the 100,000,000 number doesn't include people who died in
wars. Nope, it's limited to political prisoners, people who were
worked to death in concentration camps, and starvation throught gross
incompetence.
And we're talking mostly about a period of around 30 years. Meanwhile,
the Roman Catholic Church, excluding wars, killed maybe 10,000 people
in 1700 years. Heck, make it a million - we're still talking about
chump change compared to the pure evil of Athiests in power.
About your strange slight at Democracy, which nation are you talking
about?
Jason T
reaction is that 100 million is way high, but I suppose whether it's 100
million or 1 million, it's still more than should suffer. This doesn't mean
I give the point, though. See my address to the democracy thing.
If you really believe that the Roman Catholic Church is only responsible for
10 thousand deaths, then you're definitely mistaken. Three major crusades,
years of buried science in the name of God that could have helped people to
understand that their water was killing them rather than helping them,
untold numbers of assassinations (including popes, archbishops, and
bishops), a few inquisitions (for heretics, jews, conversos, and even
witches), and shitloads of hoarding while the common suffered, bled, and
died.
And about the democracy thing. My overall point is that whenever we join
together in Religion or Nationalism lots of people seem to die. History's
path is strewn with the corpses of the victims of nationalism, imperialism,
facism, etc. as well as almost every major religion. Whether it's the ideal
of communism (which, famously, many major Christian, Jewish, and Muslim
prophets encouraged) or democracy, or the idea of God or Jehovah (OK,
granted, those two are one in the same), someone's gonna pay for others'
beliefs and passions.
I'm not suggesting for a moment that I have an answer for all of this. I'm
just pointing out that if we're going to list numbers then we've got plenty
of numbers with which to share the wealth.
Jason T.
<bval...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1145211061.2...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> No, the number is actually a lowball figure. It comes from "the Black
> Book of Communism". It was written by two French communists, who set
> out to record the glorious history of World Socialism. They were
> horrified when research revealed the truth.
[snip Amazon URL]
bval...@aol.com
reaction is that 100 million is way high, but I suppose whether it's
100
million or 1 million, it's still more than should suffer.>>>>
How is it that an event within living memory which killed (at least)
ten times as many people as the Holocaust is news to you? What would
you say to a person who hadn't heard of the Nazi's abuses? What would
you think of a person who, when you told him about the 11 million who
died during the Holocaust said "bullshit, man." How is it possible
that you have never heard of this disaster?
>>>> This doesn't mean
I give the point, though. See my address to the democracy thing. >>>
>>>If you really believe that the Roman Catholic Church is only responsible for
10 thousand deaths, then you're definitely mistaken.>>>
Prove it.
>>>Three major crusades, >>>
That was war. I didn't include war in the 100,000,000 + of the
Communists.
>>>years of buried science in the name of God that could have helped people to
understand that their water was killing them rather than helping
them,>>>
Nonsense. Even non-Catholics such as Heilbron, Alistair Cameron
Crombie, Lindberg, Grant, and Thomas Goldstein) refute the idea that
the Church has had a negative influence in the development of
civilization. Not only did the monks save and cultivate the remnants of
ancient civilization during the barbarian invasions, but the Church
promoted learning and science through its sponsorship of many
universities which grew rapidly in Europe in the 11th and 12th
centuries, under its leadership. The Church's priest-scientists many of
whom were Jesuits were the leading lights in astronomy, geomagnetism,
meteorology, seismology, and solar physics, becoming the "fathers" of
these sciences.
>>>a few inquisitions (for heretics, jews, conversos, and even
witches),>>>
Most of the inquistions were held to STOP executions, not to cause
them.
>>> and shitloads of hoarding while the common suffered, bled, and
died. >>>
You just don't know what you're talking about.
>>>And about the democracy thing.>>>>
"The democracy thing?" Christ, you're an arrogant fool.
>>>> My overall point is that whenever we join together in Religion or Nationalism lots of people seem to die.>>>
What do you know? 100,000,000 + people have died because of the
Communists, and it's news to you.
Matthew Winn
wrote:
> What do you know? 100,000,000 + people have died because of the
> Communists, and it's news to you.
Communists or atheists? You started off by claiming that this many
people were killed by atheists. Why change your story?
Not all communists were atheists. Very few of them were, actually.
The founders of communism disapproved of religion and considered it
unnecessary and counterproductive but that didn't stop ordinary people
remaining faithful. Far from it, actually: suffering tends to drive
people towards religion as a source of comfort. Some of the communist
countries were among the most religious nations on Earth, even if
official government policy claimed there was no place for religion
in the state.
Or do you think that all the communist atrocities were committed by
the leaders themselves, with no delegation to underlings? (And no,
"they were following orders" won't be accepted as an argument.)
--
Matthew Winn
[If replying by mail remove the "r" from "urk"]
Newport
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
bval...@aol.com
> Communists, and it's news to you.
>>>>Communists or atheists?>>>
Yes.
>>>> You started off by claiming that this many
people were killed by atheists. >>>>
Yes, I did.
>>> Why change your story? >>>>
I didn't.
>>>Not all communists were atheists.>>>
The heads of Communist nations, without except, were atheists, and are
atheists.
>>>>Very few of them were, actually. >>>>
The heads of Communist nations, without except, were atheists, and are
atheists.
>>>>The founders of communism disapproved of religion and considered it
unnecessary and counterproductive but that didn't stop ordinary people
remaining faithful.>>>>>
Except for the closing most of the parishes, rounding up most of the
Priests, Monks and Nuns, throwing them into workcamps and working them
to death part; yeah, I guess the average Russian might dare to think
religious thoughts to themselves, if they didn't think too loud.
>>>> Far from it, actually: suffering tends to drive people towards religion as a source of comfort.<<<<
Except that Stalin closed most of the churches, and arrested most of
the Priests.
>>>> Some of the communist countries were among the most religious nations on Earth, even if official government policy claimed there was no place for religion in the state. >>>>>
You need to learn history.
Continuous persecution in the 1930s resulted in its near-extinction: by
1939, active parishes numbered in the low hundreds (down from 54,000 in
1917), many churches had been leveled, and tens of thousands of
priests, monks and nuns were persecuted. During World War II, however,
the Church was allowed a revival, as a patriotic organization:
thousands of parishes were reactivated, until a further round of
suppression in Khrushchev's time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin
>>>>Or do you think that all the communist atrocities were committed by
the leaders themselves, with no delegation to underlings? (And no,
"they were following orders" won't be accepted as an argument.) >>>>
The oppression line of command was much the same in any fascist
organization, I suppose.
One of the reasons that Atheists/Communists are as bloodthirsty as they
are is because people like you give them a pass.
Noel...@aol.com
between a Marxist (one who admires the 19th century economic
philosopher) and a Stalinist. Stalin, of course, turned out to be one
of the worst despots of the 20th century, but it took some time for the
extent of his perfidy to reveal itself. For a while, he was our ally.
In the 1930s, during the Great Depression, it seemed to many that
capitalism had failed the American people. So much poverty,
homelessness, joblessness. So, a VERY small percentage of people
entertained the idea of using other economic models, like communism.
Of the people working in Hollywood in the 1930s, a VERY small
percentage were aptly-named American Communists. Many of these admired
what was going on in the Soviet Union until Stalin and Hitler made a
pact not to fight each other. At that point, the Overwhelming Majority
of American Communists left the party, criticized Stalin, re-joined the
major parties.
After the war, the news came out that Stalin had killed, jailed, and
starved his own people. At that point the Overwhelming Majority or
American Communists stopped being communists. It was virtually
impossible to find an American who supported Stalin and what he had
done.
Yet, during the height of The Red Scare, people in positions of power
acted as if there was some real threat of film and TV writers putting
secret demoralizing anti-American messages into their scripts. I
challenge anybody to find one instance of this ever happening. The
blacklist and the HUAC robbed the screen of some of its greatest
writers, but did nothing to save America from communist subliminal
messages, because NONE EXISTED. All sorts of films and work of art
have told the story of what Stalin did to his people. The Front is one
of very few films that talks about the victims of blacklisting that
happened to be television writers.
Bvallely, I'll point out one thing that's obvious: your political
views are repugnant to me, every bit as objectionable to me as the
views of Lillian Hellman, Clifford Odets and Bert Brecht are to you.
But I would never try to stop you from writing for television because I
don't like your politics. But, in the 1950s, excellent screenwriters
like Dalton Trumbo, Abe Polonsky and Walter Bernstein were kept from
working because of their politics. It's amazing if you can't see
it as tragic when writers go unemployed for reasons that have nothing
to do with the quality of their work.
stephen...@gmail.com
Newport wrote:
> But I think ON THE BEACH would make a fascinating musical.
So do I - but the grotesque version I carry around in my head is by
Jerry Herman, who, shall we say, would probably be a less than
appropriate choice for the material.
Stephen
Newport
is lookin' good. So where is our Clifford Odets?
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Newport
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
stephen...@gmail.com
Newport wrote:
> What about Mel Brooks' and Susan Stroman's ON THE BEACH?
Provided he didn't "write" the "music" himself, sure.
Stephen
Newport
stephen...@gmail.com
And imagine the gimmicky tap numbers on the submarine. Tommy Tune in the
Fred Astaire role?
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
bval...@aol.com
is lookin' good. >>>
What is the most attractive part of Europe? The high unemployment?
The fact that the riots in Paris lasts weeks? The opressed Arab
minority who are forced into gettos?
Newport
From: Noel...@aol.com
are repugnant to me, every bit as objectionable to me as the views of
Lillian Hellman, Clifford Odets and Bert Brecht are to you.
How about Lillian Roth, Cliff Edwards, and Bert Convy?
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
bval...@aol.com
But all communist societies are identical - fascist, brutal
dictatorships.
>>>> and there's an importance difference
between a Marxist (one who admires the 19th century economic
philosopher) and a Stalinist.>>>
Yes, one is a fool, and the other is evil.
How does anyone at this late date think of communism as anything other
than the greatest disaster in human history? How many more millions,
or tens of millions, or hundreds of millions, have to die before these
folks figure out that the theory has a flaw?
What if we gave communism a decade to iron out the details? Oh, wait,
we've given it almost a century in some parts of the world. Maybe it's
right for some nations, and not others. What if we took a country, cut
it in half, and allowed on side to be communist, and the other to be
capitalist? Oh, wait, we did that a couple of times: East and West
Germany, and North and South Korea. In both cases, the capitalist side
prospered and became free, while the communist side degenerated into an
impoverished, fascist police state. Maybe a country is too big -- what
if we divided a city in half? Oh, wait, we did; East and West Berlin.
Now, how did that work out again? Oh, right. The capitalist side
prospered and became free, while the communist side degenerated into an
impoverished, fascist police state.
And yet, Marxism still has it's defenders - largely in the universities
and the arts. I'm left standing the field, chewin' on a piece of straw
and scratchin' my head with a rack over that one. Am I the only one
who remembers that the communists went after the intellectuals first?
Did you know that the Soviet Union sent so many intellectuals to
Siberia that today it's one of the cultural centers of the world? They
have six full time opera houses, ballet, ect... Why do so many people
in the arts and academia support a system which would likely call for
their banishment or extermination?
>>> Stalin, of course, turned out to be one of the worst despots of the 20th century, but it took some time for the
extent of his perfidy to reveal itself.>>>>
And no wonder it took "some time", with slimeballs like Walter Duranty
winning the Pulitzer for his white wash in the New York Times of a
Ukrainian famine in 1932-33. In an article in NYT, August 24 1933, he
claimed "any report of a famine is today an exaggeration or malignant
propaganda", but admitted privately to William Strang (British Embassy,
Moscow September 26, 1933) that "it is quite possible that as many as
ten million people may have died directly or indirectly from lack of
food in the Soviet Union during the past year".
>>> For a while, he was our ally. >>>>
And for a while, he was Hitler's ally.
>>>In the 1930s, during the Great Depression, it seemed to many that
capitalism had failed the American people. So much poverty,
homelessness, joblessness. So, a VERY small percentage of people
entertained the idea of using other economic models, like communism.
Of the people working in Hollywood in the 1930s, a VERY small
percentage were aptly-named American Communists. >>>
I'm a particularly bad person to try and sell that bottle of snake-oil
too. I've actually read a great deal of the literature and theatre of
that era. Communism was HOT during the thirties.
>>> Many of these admired what was going on in the Soviet Union until Stalin and Hitler made a pact not to fight each other. >>
Nope. Stalin's "marrage" to Hitler brought Uncle Adolph respectablity
with American liberals, socialists and other such riff-raft. The
American left didn't turn strigently anti-Hitler until the paperhanger
invaded Russia. How many anti-Nazi films did Hollywood crank out
before Nov. 7th, 1941? As far as I can; tell, three, count em, three
- "The Great Dictator" by Charlie Chaplin, "You Nutzy Spy" and "I'll
Never Heil Again", both by The Three Stooges. By far, the superior
work was created by the Three Stooges. Moe Howard, (nobody's fool,)
understood Hitler, and knew how to deal with dictators - you kill them.
>>>After the war, the news came out that Stalin had killed, jailed, and
starved his own people. At that point the Overwhelming Majority or
American Communists stopped being communists. It was virtually
impossible to find an American who supported Stalin and what he had
done. >>>
Just not true. Hell, "The Nation" supported Stalin's reign up until
the late 80s. Take a look at popular culture for the past forty years -
the surest way to quickly show that a character was a fool was to have
him speak badly about communism. Frank Burns in "M*A*S*H" is a
splendid example. "M*A*S*H" was on the air for eleven years, and ithat
was a show about fighting a war against communism. How many times did
a M*A*S*H sympathetic character express ANY disapproval over fascist
tactics of the Communists? I don't believe it happened once. In fact,
the last somewhat sympathetic, anti-Communist I can remember was a
quarter of a century ago - FBI agent Bill (play by Robert Culp) in "The
Greatest American Hero" - and even he was more than a little loopy.
The Vernona documents revealed hundreds of people in the State
Department who worked secretly with the Soviet Union. Hell, when the
Verona documents were declassified by Bill Clinton in 1996, the New
York Times buried the story. Last time I checked, a Nexus search show
that the Times referred to the documents eight times. These documents
completely change our view of history, and the Paper of Record only
referred to them eight times.
>>>All sorts of films and work of art have told the story of what Stalin did to his people. >>>>
List ten that were made in the last 35 years. After all, Stalin killed
at least twice as many of his own people as Hitler killed in
concentration camps. Some list that number as eight times as many.
Where is the Russian version of "Shindler's List?" Of "The Sorry and
the Pity"? Where?
>>> The Front is one of very few films that talks about the victims of blacklisting that happened to be television writers. >>>
That doesn't keep "The Front" from being profoundly dishonest.
>>>Yet, during the height of The Red Scare, people in positions of power
acted as if there was some real threat of film and TV writers putting
secret demoralizing anti-American messages into their scripts.>>>
I don't think you understand my position - I'm not worried about the
Hollywood Ten. I thought going after them was showboating by corrupt
politicians - and I'm a guy who thought what McCarthy did was mostly
right. What I do find outrageous is the "suffering" of the Ten has
been lionized while the hundred million who were murdered by the
soviets remain invisible.
>>>Bvallely, I'll point out one thing that's obvious: your political
views are repugnant to me, every bit as objectionable to me as the
views of Lillian Hellman, Clifford Odets and Bert Brecht are to you.
>>>
I don't find their works repugnant or objectionable, I just think they
were wrong, (and I believe that history has proven me correct).
Honestly and truly, I have no problem with people holding different
ideas than mine. Heck, one of my favorite albums of all time is
"Alice's Restaurant." I've read every novel by Isaac Asimov; read the
New York Times and the LA Weekly, well, weekly. I even performed in a
parody of a Christian Hellhouse called "Hollywood Hellhouse". (It
starred Bill Maher and dozens others. I'm told there's a 30 second
clip of me in a documentary of the play.) I'm not threatened by ideas
other than my own, and I don't think that people who disagree with me
are necessarily stupid. But I've spoken to many Marxists, and found
them, to a man, to be arrogant, dismissive and passionately, willfully,
ignorant.
>>>>But I would never try to stop you from writing for television because I
don't like your politics. >>>>
How outraged where you when Act Up forced Doctor Laura off the air?
When John Kerry's people called Regency Press and demanded that a book
by war veteran be recalled and destroyed?
When colleges refuse to allow military recruiting on campus?
When Kerry's people went on national television, and openly threatened
a cable station for running a documentary which was critical of Kerry?
When Mel Gibson was literally called a Nazi because of his film "The
Passion of the Christ"?
The comic strip BC ran in the Los Angeles Times for forty years, until
Hart drew a strip on Easter Sunday which showed how Christianity grew
out of Judaism. It has since been banned.
When a handful of students blew whistles to keep Ann Coulter from being
heard at a lecture? For that matter, how many people on this newsgroups
write endless variations on the idea that "Ann Coulter is a c**t" or
claim that she's a man? The fact that their attempts to intimidate Ann
is clumsy, inept and wildly ineffective doesn't change the fact that
they are trying to SHUT COULTER DOWN, because they don't agree with her
ideas.
Was it bad that those writers to be blacklisted. Sure. But until
you're willing to condemn the massive censorship the left produces,
forgive me if I don't quite succeed is stifling a yawn over "The Front."
Noel...@aol.com
> >>>Not all communists are the same,>>>
>
> But all communist societies are identical - fascist, brutal
> dictatorships.
Nicaragua (when it was red) identical to North Korea? News to me.
>
> How does anyone at this late date think of communism as anything other
> than the greatest disaster in human history?
Who are you arguing with? I've not read anybody defending communism.
>
> >>>All sorts of films and work of art have told the story of what Stalin did to his people. >>>>
>
> List ten that were made in the last 35 years.
One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich
Red Kiss
Master and Margarita
The Inner Circle
House of the Generals
The Assassination of Trotsky
Triple Agent
War Symphonies
Zina
and, the obvious allegory, Animal Farm
>
> >>> The Front is one of very few films that talks about the victims of blacklisting that happened to be television writers. >>>
>
> That doesn't keep "The Front" from being profoundly dishonest.
You've yet to say what's dishonest about it. The characters depicted
in The Front have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with Stalin or
any Communist-run government. You keep insisting a film that mentions
victims of American blacklisting must cover atrocities committed by
Communist countries. Why? Would it similarly be necessary for
Casablanca to depict the ill-effects of French imperialism?
Newport
From: Noel...@aol.com
You (ValleyBoy) keep insisting a film that mentions victims of American
blacklisting must cover atrocities committed by Communist countries.
As if that's justification.
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
bval...@aol.com
> dictatorships.
>>>Nicaragua (when it was red) identical to North Korea? News to me.>>>
And that's all this means to you? 100,000,000 dead, and the best
response you can come up with his that Nicaragura wasn't the same sort
of dicatorship as Korea?
> How does anyone at this late date think of communism as anything other
> than the greatest disaster in human history?
>>>Who are you arguing with? I've not read anybody defending communism. >>>>
And the reason you read reading about those people is because you cut
the quote out. Remember? You said that Marxists should not be judged
the same way Stalinists are? How can any thinking person be a Marxist,
after observing how huge a failure communism was?
> >>>All sorts of films and work of art have told the story of what Stalin did to his people. >>>>
> List ten that were made in the last 35 years.
>>>One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich>>>
Norway.
"Red Kiss "
West Germany
"Master and Margarita"
Russian.
The Inner Circle"
Italy, Russian, American
"House of the Generals"
Low budget independent film.
"The Assassination of Trotsky "
English, French, Italian
"Triple Agent"
France / Greece / Italy / Russia / Spain
"War Symphonies"
Canada / Germany / Netherlands
"Zina"
English
>>>and, the obvious allegory, Animal Farm>>>
The cartoon version was made a half century ago - the 1999 version was
rewritten to be an attack on capitalism, not communism.
So, there we have your mighty onslaught.
One American "independent" film, made by a one-film writer and
director.
And a Russian film, which hired some American actors.
You couldn't find a major studio film which talked about Stalin?
20 t0 80 million murdered isn't worth the time of a major star, I
guess.
> >>> The Front is one of very few films that talks about the victims of blacklisting that happened to be television writers. >>>
> That doesn't keep "The Front" from being profoundly dishonest.
>>>You've yet to say what's dishonest about it. The characters depicted in The Front have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with Stalin or any Communist-run government.>>>>
That's not the point. The hearings were held for a real reason - the
communists publically declared that they were going to bury Americans -
they had taken over half the world by force. If you don't mention
those little details, then the people running HUAC wind up being
cartoon villains. And if you don't give a realistic presentation of
the time this happened, and what modivated the Congressmen, then what
you wind up with is a cheap propaganda film.
>>>>You keep insisting a film that mentions victims of American blacklisting must cover atrocities committed by Communist countries. Why? Would it similarly be necessary for
Casablanca to depict the ill-effects of French imperialism?>>>
The film clearly showed the heavy handed brutality of the Nazi's - it
would be impossible to understand Rick if they hadn't.
bval...@aol.com
blacklisting must cover atrocities committed by Communist countries.
------------------------------------
As if that's justification.>>>
So, the execution of 20 to 80 million people doesn't justify an
investigation of people who are openly sympathetic to the cause of the
murderers?
There's a certain kind of craziness and cruelity unique to animal
rights fanatics.
stephen...@gmail.com
bval...@aol.com wrote:
> >>>>Even today, a European socialist model for the increasingly corrupt U.S.
> is lookin' good. >>>
>
> What is the most attractive part of Europe?
The fact that you aren't there?
Stephen
bval...@aol.com
The fact that you aren't there? >>>>
Because, after all, how can you be happy is there's someone on a
continent that holds opinions you disagree with?
Newport
From: bval...@aol.com
Writers who can't spell?
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Newport
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
bval...@aol.com
bval...@aol.com
That why they hire proof-readers for 13 dollars an hour.
Newport
------------------------------
Should be minimum wage.
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Noel...@aol.com
can't respond to them all. So, I limit the amount of time I devote to
responding:
bval...@aol.com wrote:
> > But all communist societies are identical - fascist, brutal
> > dictatorships.
>
> >>>Nicaragua (when it was red) identical to North Korea? News to me.>>>
>
> And that's all this means to you? 100,000,000 dead, and the best
> response you can come up with his that Nicaragura wasn't the same sort
> of dicatorship as Korea?
>
No, that's not all it means to me. I'm simply correcting your
statement that all communist societies are identical. Neither
Nicaragua nor North Korea killed 100 million. I seem to recall that
Nicaragua's leaders were Catholics, not atheists.
You said that Marxists should not be judged
> the same way Stalinists are? How can any thinking person be a Marxist,
> after observing how huge a failure communism was?
Because - I state again - there's a big difference between Marxists and
Stalinists. Just because one is interested in implementing Karl Marx's
economic principles doesn't mean one supports Stalin's starving,
jailing and killing his people. (You've stated, without citing any
evidence, that Americans supported Stalin's perfidy.) Using your
logic, one should treat all Christians as pariahs because some
Christian KKK-ers committed lynchings.
> > >>>All sorts of films and work of art have told the story of what Stalin did to his people. > > List ten that were made in the last 35 years.
> You couldn't find a major studio film which talked about Stalin?
You didn't qualify your request - I listed 10 films that told the story
of what Stalin did to his people, just as you originally asked.
I've asked you what's dishonest about what's depicted in The Front;
you've yet to answer.
>The hearings were held for a real reason - the
> communists publically declared that they were going to bury Americans -
> they had taken over half the world by force. If you don't mention
> those little details, then the people running HUAC wind up being
> cartoon villains.
If a villain is foolish enough to believe that Soviet expansionists
sought to take over the world by slipping subliminal messages in
American films and TV shows, he's defined himself as cartoonish.
McCarthy garnered fame by holding up a list of names he claimed were
Communists in the State Department. Did he ever name these names? Did
he turn over this list to investigators? More than 50 years have
passed. Why is the number of State Department reds we've discovered in
all this time so much lower than the number that McCarthy claimed?
Seems to me that NOT revealing the names on this list (if it wasn't
just a blank piece of paper) is an act of treason, worthy of greater
punishment than Censure in the Senate.
bval...@aol.com
------------------------------
Should be minimum wage.>>>
So, it should be illegal to hire a college kid for ten dollars and hour
to clean out your attic?
Bushwhacker
What a strange parallel universe you inhabit...
bval...@aol.com
can't respond to them all. So, I limit the amount of time I devote to
responding: >>>
You have a history of editing out important facts, to
bvall...@aol.com wrote:
> > But all communist societies are identical - fascist, brutal
> > dictatorships.
> >>>Nicaragua (when it was red) identical to North Korea? News to me.>>>
> And that's all this means to you? 100,000,000 dead, and the best
> response you can come up with his that Nicaragua wasn't the same sort
> of dictatorship as Korea?
>>>>No, that's not all it means to me. I'm simply correcting your
statement that all communist societies are identical. Neither
Nicaragua nor North Korea killed 100 million.>>>>
Perhaps they weren't members of the 100,000,000 club -- but they were
(in Nicaragua) and are (in Korea's case) brutal dictatorships.
>>>> I seem to recall that Nicaragua's leaders were Catholics, not atheists. >>>>
Daniel Ortega was raised a Catholic, and would mouth Catholic
platitudes when it was politically convenient while shooting Catholics
who got in his way. So far, we've described Adolph Hitler.
You said that Marxists should not be judged
> the same way Stalinists are? How can any thinking person be a Marxist,
> after observing how huge a failure communism was?
>>>>Because - I state again - there's a big difference between Marxists and
Stalinists. >>>>
And - I state again - the difference is that one is a fool, the other a
monster. How can any thinking person, knowing the suffering that
Communism has caused, continue to support Marx?
What if we gave communism a decade to iron out the details? Oh, wait,
we've given it almost a century in some parts of the world. Maybe it's
right for some nations, and not others. What if we took a country, cut
it in half, and allowed on side to be communist, and the other to be
capitalist? Oh, wait, we did that a couple of times: East and West
Germany, and North and South Korea. In both cases, the capitalist side
prospered and became free, while the communist side degenerated into an
impoverished, fascist police state. Maybe a country is too big -- what
if we divided a city in half? Oh, wait, we did; East and West Berlin.
Now, how did that work out again? Oh, right. The capitalist side
prospered and became free, while the communist side degenerated into an
impoverished, fascist police state.
>>>> Just because one is interested in implementing Karl Marx's
economic principles doesn't mean one supports Stalin's starving,
jailing and killing his people.>>>>
No, it means that person is arrogant beyond belief - to be a Marxist,
one must insist that they can make a system work which has heretofore
brought unprecedented human suffering. The modern Marxist believes
that he is smarter than the billions who went before him, that he can
make such a failure work once and for all, and doesn't care about the
misery such a plan would create.
>>>>(You've stated, without citing any
evidence, that Americans supported Stalin's perfidy.)
You know, I went to Amazon to look up this topic - jeez Louise, there's
a truckload of books out now about the Vernoa documents. I ordered
three just now.
If the Ethical Culture School on Central Park West did it's job, you
would run out and pick up these books to see if they were compelling,
and if they might cause you to rethink long held beliefs.
>>>>Using your logic, one should treat all Christians as pariahs because some Christian KKK-ers committed lynchings. >>>>
No, using my logic, one should condemn Christians as pariahs who insist
that, while they deplore the tactics of the KKK, still believe that the
founding principals of that organization are sound. Any Christian who
tried to sell "KKK without the violence" is indeed a pariah. Mind you,
these yahoos exist. They run websites with lots of pictures of
rainbows and happy, smiling children of difference races holding hands.
They write about how sad it would be if everyone was the same skin
color. Nobody defends them, because what they present is indefensible.
That being said, I must state it's unfair to compare the KKK to the
Communist Party. The KKK didn't run death camps, nor fill mass graves.
> > >>>All sorts of films and work of art have told the story of what Stalin did to his people. > > List ten that were made in the last 35 years.
> You couldn't find a major studio film which talked about Stalin?>>>>
>>>You didn't qualify your request ->>>>
I didn't think I needed to. You made it sound like the viewing public
was being bombarded with anti-Stalin films left and right. Now I find
out that, virtually without exception, these films are lowbudget
overseas films that almost nobody has seen.
>>> I listed 10 films that told the story of what Stalin did to his people, just as you originally asked. >>>>
Since we were discussing a major American studio film, when you said
that all "sorts of films and work of art have told the story of what
Stalin did to his people," I assumed you were talking movies with equal
firepower, not dinky little, long forgotten low budget Norwegian films.
You certainly didn't make any effort to explain that you were talking
about films that had little distribution, and virtually nobody has ever
heard of. Congrats - you win the coveted "Disingenuous Statement
Award."
>>>I've asked you what's dishonest about what's depicted in The Front;
you've yet to answer. >>>
If you want to effectively deny that I haven't said what is dishonest
about a movie, DON'T REPRINT MY STATEMENTS ABOUT WHY THE FILM WAS
DISHONEST, like you did below.
>The hearings were held for a real reason - the
> communists publically declared that they were going to bury Americans -
> they had taken over half the world by force. If you don't mention
> those little details, then the people running HUAC wind up being
> cartoon villains.
>>>>If a villain is foolish enough to believe that Soviet expansionists
sought to take over the world by slipping subliminal messages in
American films and TV shows, he's defined himself as cartoonish. >>>
Which is the foolish part? That the Russians would do such a thing?
The Verona Documents showed that they were interested in doing exactly
that. Or is it foolish to think that such a scheme would work. There,
you might be on a bit firmer footage. After all, if such a thing were
possible, Coke would happily spend hundred of thousand or millions to
have their product placed in a film to increase sales. What would you
call such an insane plan, "product placement?"
>>>>McCarthy garnered fame by holding up a list of names he claimed were
Communists in the State Department. Did he ever name these names?>>>
Yup:
T.A. Bisson
Mary Jane Keeney
Cedric Belfrage
Solomon Adler
Franz Neumann
Leonard Mins
Gustavo Duran
William Remington
And you know what? Every name on this list is guilty.
>>> Did he turn over this list to investigators? More than 50 years have
passed. Why is the number of State Department reds we've discovered in
all this time so much lower than the number that McCarthy claimed?>>>>
It isn't. It's much higher.
>>>>Seems to me that NOT revealing the names on this list (if it wasn't
just a blank piece of paper) is an act of treason, worthy of greater
punishment than Censure in the Senate. >>>
So, let's see if I've got this straight. Supporting a fascist
organization that is openly working to destroy the United States is a
person's right. Not revealing classified information is treason.
Picture yourself in a boat on a river,
With Tangerine Trees
And Marmalade skyyyyyyyyyyyyyy.............
bval...@aol.com
What a strange parallel universe you inhabit...>>>
Ever read about the Verona papers?
Bushwhacker
Yeah, they told me about Two Gentlemen.
I assume, however, that you're talking about the VeNona papers, and they
don't prove anything about McCarthy.
From Wikipedia:
"However, there has never been any indication that McCarthy possessed
VENONA intelligence at the time of his accusations, and McCarthy in fact
accused the above of being Communists, not Soviet spies. Additionally,
even VENONA and the Soviet files failed to produce evidence to support
the claims against the vast majority of the people that McCarthy targeted."
He was an alcoholic, closeted self-loathing homosexual (do you think his
nickname "Tailgunner Joe" pertained to his war record -- which he also
lied about?), whose entire career was filled with ethical failures and
wildly varying, false accusations, who destroyed many innocent lives,
and who finally drank himself to death. He was despised by virtually all
Democrats and most Republicans, notably Eisenhower, and his name has
become synonymous with oppressive witch hunts. You want to make him one
of your heroes, then go for it. It's pretty much in line with your usual
standards.
bval...@aol.com
VENONA intelligence at the time of his accusations,>>>>
Why wouldn't he have had access to the information? We know that he
worked closely with Hoover, and J. Edgar certainly had access to the
information.
>>>and McCarthy in fact accused the above of being Communists, not Soviet spies. >>>>
So, these people where WORSE than McCarthy claimed.
>>>>Additionally,
even VENONA and the Soviet files failed to produce evidence to support
the claims against the vast majority of the people that McCarthy
targeted.">>>
Really? Can you can one person who McCarthy falsely accused?
>>>>He was an alcoholic, closeted self-loathing homosexual (do you think his
nickname "Tailgunner Joe" pertained to his war record -- which he also
lied about?), whose entire career was filled with ethical failures and
wildly varying, false accusations, who destroyed many innocent lives,
and who finally drank himself to death. He was despised by virtually
all
Democrats and most Republicans, notably Eisenhower, and his name has
become synonymous with oppressive witch hunts. You want to make him one
of your heroes, then go for it. It's pretty much in line with your
usual
standards. >>>
So, at the end of the day, McCarthy has been proven correct, and all
you have to cling to are personal attacks against a great man.
BTW, here's a partial list of communists who the Venona papers outed:
John Abt United States Department of Agriculture; Works Progress
Administration; Civil Liberties Subcommittee, Senate Committee on
Education and Labor; special assistant to the United States Attorney
General, United States Department of Justice
Solomon Adler, United States Department of the Treasury, supplied info
to Silvermaster group, went to China after communist revolution and
joined government of Mao Zedong
Lydia Altschuler
Thomas Babin, Yugoslavia Section Office of Strategic Services
Marion Bachrach, (*) congressional office manager of Congressman John
Bernard of the Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party
Rudy Baker
Vladimir Barash
Joel Barr, United States Army Signal Corps Laboratories
Alice Barrows, United States Office of Education
Theodore Bayer, President, Russky Golos Publishing
George Beiser, National Research Establishment, Research and
Development Board; engineer Bell Aircraft
Aleksandr Belenky, General Electric
Cedric Belfrage, journalist; British Security Coordination
Elizabeth Bentley, companion of Jacob Golos of Sound/Myrna group;
turned herself in to FBI in 1945 leading to unraveling of many Soviet
spy rings
Marion Davis Berdecio, Office of Naval Intelligence; Office of the
Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs; United States Department of
State
Josef Berger, (*) Democratic National Committee
Joseph Bernstein, Board of Economic Warfare
Walter Sol Bernstein, Hollywood Screenwriter, listed on the MPAA's
Hollywood blacklist
T.A. Bisson, Board of Economic Warfare
Thomas Lessing Black, Bureau of Standards United States Department of
Commerce
Samuel Bloomfield, (*) Eastern European Division, Research and Analysis
Division, Office of Strategic Services
Robinson Bobrow
Ralph Bowen, (*) United States Department of State
Abraham Brothman, chemist convicted for his role in the Rosenberg ring
Earl Browder, General Secretary of the Communist Party of the United
States
Rose Browder
William Browder
Michael Burd, Head of Midland Export Corporation
Paul Burns, employee of TASS
Norman Bursler, United States Department of Justice Anti-Trust Division
James Michael Callahan
Sylvia Callen
Frank Coe, Assistant Director, Division of Monetary Research, United
States Department of the Treasury; Special Assistant to the United
States Ambassador in London; Assistant to the Executive Director, Board
of Economic Warfare; Assistant Administrator, Foreign Economic
Administration, went to China and joined government of Mao Zedong
Lona Cohen, sentenced to 20 years; subject of Hugh Whitemore's drama
for stage and TV Pack of Lies
Morris Cohen (Soviet spy) sentenced to 25 years; subject of Hugh
Whitemore's drama for stage and TV Pack of Lies
Eugene Franklin Coleman, RCA electrical engineer
Anna Colloms, New York City schoolteacher
Judith Coplon, Foreign Agents Registration section, United States
Department of Justice; her convictions for espionage were overturned on
technicalities
Lauchlin Currie, Administrative Assistant to President Roosevelt;
Deputy Administrator of Foreign Economic Administration; Special
Representative to China
Byron Darling, United States Rubber Company; United States Office of
Scientific Research & Development
Eugene Dennis, General Secretary Communist Party USA sentenced to 5
years for advocating overthrow of U.S. government
Samuel Dickstein, United States Congressman from New York known to be
paid by Soviets; New York State Supreme Court Justice; Vice Chair of
HUAC during hearings into the Business Plot against FDR
Martha Dodd, daughter of United States Ambassador to Germany William
Dodd, Popular Front
William Dodd Jr., son of William Dodd, United States Ambassador to
Germany; Democratic Congressional candidate
Laurence Duggan, head of United States Department of State Division of
American Republics
Demetrius Dvoichenko-Markov, U.S. Army
Eufrosina Dvoichenko-Markov
Frank Dziedzik, National Oil Products Company
Nathan Einhorn, Executive Secretary of American Newspaper Guild
Max Elitcher, (*) Naval Ordinance Section, National Bureau of Standards
Jacob Epstein, International Brigades
Jack Fahy, Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs; Board
of Economic Warfare; United States Department of the Interior
Linn Markley Farish, Liaison Officer with Tito's Yugoslav Partisan
forces, Office of Strategic Services
Edward Fitzgerald, War Production Board
Charles Flato, Board of Economic Warfare; Civil Liberties Subcommittee,
Senate Committee on Education and Labor
Isaac Folkoff
Jane Foster, Board of Economic Warfare; Office of Strategic Services;
Netherlands Study Unit
Zalmond Franklin
Isabel Gallardo
Boleslaw Gebert, National Officer of Polonia Society of International
Workers Order
Harrison George, senior CPUSA leadership, editor of People's World
Rebecca Getzoff
Harold Glasser, Director, Division of Monetary Research, United States
Department of the Treasury; United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation
Administration; War Production Board; Advisor on North African Affairs
Committee; United States Treasury Representative to the Allied High
Commission in Italy
Bela Gold, Assistant Head of Program Surveys, Bureau of Agricultural
Economics, United States Department of Agriculture; Senate Subcommittee
on War Mobilization; Office of Economic Programs in Foreign Economic
Administration
Harry Gold, sentenced to 30 years for his role in the Rosenbergs ring
Sonia Steinman Gold, Division of Monetary Research United States
Department of Treasury Department; United States House of
Representatives Select Committee on Interstate Migration; United States
Bureau of Employment Security
Elliot Goldberg, engineer for an oil equipment company in New York
Jacob Golos, "main pillar" of NKVD spy network, particularly the
Sound/Myrna group, he died in the arms of Elizabeth Bentley
George Gorchoff
Gerald Graze, United States Department of State
David Greenglass, machinist at Los Alamos sentenced to 15 years for his
role in Rosenberg ring; he was the brother of executed Ethel Rosenberg
Ruth Greenglass, avoided prosecution thanks to her husband's testimony
against his sister that he later admitted was perjured
Joseph Gregg, Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs;
United States Department of State
Theodore Hall, physicist at Los Alamos during the Manhattan Project,
volunteered to spy for Soviets, never prosecuted
Maurice Halperin, Chief of Latin American Division, Research and
Analysis Section, Office of Strategic Services; United States
Department of State
Kitty Harris, globe-trotting companion of communist party boss Earl
Browder
William Henwood, Standard Oil of California
Clarence Hiskey, University of Chicago Metallurgical Laboratory,
Manhattan Project
Alger Hiss, Director of the Office of Special Political Affairs United
States Department of State, sentenced to 5 years for perjury
Donald Hiss, United States Department of State; United States
Department of Labor; United States Department of the Interior
Louis Horvitz, International Brigades
Rosa Isaak, Executive Secretary of the American-Russian Institute
Herman R. Jacobson, Avery Manufacturing Company
Bella Joseph, motion picture division of Office of Strategic Services
Emma Harriet Joseph, (*) Office of Strategic Services
Julius Joseph, National Resources Planning Board; Federal Security
Agency; Social Security Board; Office of Emergency Management; Labor
War Manpower Commission; Deputy Chief, Far Eastern section (Japanese
Intelligence) Office of Strategic Services
Gertrude Kahn
David Karr, Office of War Information; chief aide to journalist Drew
Pearson
Joseph Katz
Helen Grace Scott Keenan, Office of the Co-ordinator of Inter-American
Affairs; Office of United States Chief Counsel for Prosecution of Axis
War Criminals, Office of Strategic Services
Mary Jane Keeney, Board of Economic Warfare; Allied Staff on
Reparations; United Nations
Philip Keeney, Office of the Coordinator of Information (later OSS)
Alexander Koral, former engineer of the municipality of New York
Helen Koral
Samuel Krafsur, journalist TASS
Charles Kramer, Senate Subcommittee on War Mobilization; Office of
Price Administration; National Labor Relations Board; Senate
Subcommittee on Wartime Health and Education; Agricultural Adjustment
Administration; United States Senate Civil Liberties Subcommittee,
Senate Committee on Education and Labor; Senate Labor and Public
Welfare Committee; Democratic National Committee
Christina Krotkova, Office of War Information
Sergey Nikolaevich Kurnakov
Stephen Laird, Hollywood Producer; Time Magazine Reporter; Columbia
Broadcasting System (CBS) correspondent
Rudy Lambert, California Communist party labor director and head of
security
Oskar Lange
Trude Lash, United Nations Human Rights Committee
Richard Lauterbach, Time Magazine
Duncan Lee, counsel to General William Donovan, head of Office of
Strategic Services
Michael Leshing, superintendent of Twentieth Century Fox film
laboratories
Leo Levanas, Shell Oil Company
Morris Libau
Helen Lowry
Willaim Mackey
Harry Magdoff, Chief of the Control Records Section of War Production
Board and Office of Emergency Management; Bureau of Research and
Statistics, WTB; Tools Division, War Production Board; Bureau of
Foreign and Domestic Commerce, United States Department of Commerce;
Statistics Division Works Progress Administration
William Malisoff, owner of United Laboratories of New York
Hede Massing, journalist
Robert Menaker
Floyd Miller
James Walter Miller, United States Post Office, Office of Censorship
Robert Miller, Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs;
Near Eastern Division United States Department of State
Robert Minor, Office of Strategic Services
Leonard Mins, Russian Section of the Research and Analysis Division of
the Office of Strategic Services
Arthur Moosen
Vladimir Morkovin, Office of Naval Research
Boris Moros, Hollywood Producer
Nicola Napoli, president of Artkino, distributor of Soviet films
Franz Leopold Neumann, consultant at Board of Economic Warfare; Deputy
Chief of the Central European Section of Office of Strategic Services;
First Chief of Research of the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal
Melita Norwood
Eugénie Olkhine
Rose Olsen
Frank Oppenheimer, (*) physicist
Robert Oppenheimer
Nicholas W. Orloff
Nadia Morris Osipovich
Edna Patterson
William Perl, National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) at
Langley Army Air Base; Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory; sentenced to
5 years for his role in the Rosenberg ring of atomic spies
Victor Perlo, chief of the Aviation Section of the War Production
Board; Head of Branch in Research Section, Office of Price
Administration Department of Commerce; Division of Monetary Research
Department of Treasury; Brookings Institution
Burton Perry
Aleksandr N. Petroff, Curtiss-Wright Aircraft
Emma Phillips
Paul Pinsky
William Pinsly, Curtiss-Wright Aircraft, Cornell Aeronautical
Laboratory
William Plourde, engineer with Bell Aircraft
Vladimir Pozner, head Russian Division photographic section United
States War Department
Lee Pressman Department of Agriculture; Works Progress Administration;
General Counsel Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO)
Mary Price, stenographer for Walter Lippmann of the New York Herald
Esther Trebach Rand, United Palestine Appeal
Bernard Redmont, head of the Foreign News Bureau Office of the
Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs
Peter Rhodes, Foreign Broadcasting Monitoring Service, Allied Military
Headquarters London; Chief of the Atlantic News Service, Office of War
Information
Stephen Rich
Kenneth Richardson, World Wide Electronics
Ruth Rivkin, United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration
Samuel Rodman, United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration
Allan Rosenberg, Board of Economic Warfare; Chief of the Economic
Institution Staff, Foreign Economic Administration; Civil Liberties
Subcommittee, Senate Committee on Education and Labor; Railroad
Retirement Board; Councel to the Secretary of the National Labor
Relations Board
Julius Rosenberg, United States Army Signal Corps Laboratories,
executed for role in Rosenberg ring
Ethel Rosenberg, executed for role in Rosenberg ring based on perjured
testimony of her brother David Greenglass
Amadeo Sabatini, International Brigades
Alfred Sarant, United States Army Signal Corps laboratories
Saville Sax, Young Communist League, friend of Los Alamos spy Theodore
Hall
Marion Schultz, chair of the United Russian Committee for Aid to the
Native Country
Bernard Schuster
Milton Schwartz
John Scott, Office of Strategic Services
Ricardo Setaro, journalist/writer Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS)
Charles Bradford Sheppard, Hazeltine Electronics
Anne Sidorovich
Michael Sidorovich
George Silverman, Director of the Bureau of Research and Information
Services, US Railroad Retirement Board; Economic Adviser and Chief of
Analysis and Plans, Assistant Chief of Air Staff, Material and
Services, War Department
Greg Silvermaster, Chief Planning Technician, Procurement Division,
United States Department of the Treasury; Chief Economist, War Assets
Administration; Director of the Labor Division, Farm Security
Administration; Board of Economic Warfare; Reconstruction Finance
Corporation Department of Commerce
Helen Silvermaster
Morton Sobell, General Electric, sentenced to 30 years at Alcatraz for
his role in the Rosenberg ring
Jack Soble, brother of Robert Soblen, sentenced to 7 years for his role
in the Mocase ring
Robert Soblen, psychiatrist, sentenced to life for espionage at Sandia
Lab, escaped to IsraeI, committed suicide
Johannes Steele, journalist and radio commentator
Alfred Kaufman Stern, Popular Front
I. F. Stone, (*) journalist for The Nation
Augustina Stridsberg
Anna Louise Strong, journalist for The Atlantic Monthly, Harper's, The
Nation and Asia
Helen Tenney, Office of Strategic Services
Mikhail Tkach, editor of the Ukrainian Daily News
Lud Ullman, delegate to United Nations Charter meeting and Bretton
Woods conference; Division of Monetary Research, Department of
Treasury; Material and Services Division, Air Corps Headquarters,
Pentagon
Irving Charles Velson, Brooklyn Navy Yard; American Labor Party
candidate for New York State Senate
Margietta Voge
George Vuchinich, 2nt. United States Army assigned to Office of
Strategic Services
Donald Wheeler, Office of Strategic Services Research and Analysis
division
Enos Wicher, Wave Propagation Research, Division of War Research,
Columbia University
Maria Wicher
Harry Dexter White, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury
Ruth Beverly Wilson
Ignacy Witczak
Ilya Wolston, United States Army military intelligence
Flora Wovschin, Office of War Information; United States Department of
State
Jones Orin York
Daniel Zaret, United States Army Explosives Division
Mark Zborowski
Newport
ro...@thetop.org (Bushwhacker)
----------------------------------
"To the right, ever to the right..."
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Noel...@aol.com
> >>>."However, there has never been any indication that McCarthy possessed
> VENONA intelligence at the time of his accusations,>>>>
>
> Why wouldn't he have had access to the information?
Because McCarthy was lying when he held that paper and said: "I have
here in my hand a list of 57 people that were known to the Secretary of
State as being members of the Communist Party, and who, nevertheless,
are still working and shaping the policy of the State Department."
In the list you provided, ten people worked for the State Department.
So, what happened to the other 47? Are they just the
ones-who-got-away?
History has proven McCarthy a liar, and you'll find that fact in any
American history textbook.
>
> So, at the end of the day, McCarthy has been proven correct
I've read a great many books on McCarthyism. Your posts force me to
question if you've read anything by Karl Marx. His was an economic
philosophy, one that need not be employed through dictatorship,
despotism, or mass murder. And that's how so many people can be
Marxist but not Stalinist. Find a single statement by Daniel Ortega
supporting Stalin's purges.
Not long ago, we were talking about the witch hunt of Hollywood
screenwriters who, some felt, were inserting subliminal anti-American
messages in their films and TV shows. I've repeatedly asked you to
find a single instance of this. If Soviet
demoralization-through-entertainment never happened, then what happened
to many of the fine folk putting on TV shows and films 50 years ago was
a needless tragedy. And if, over many years, a handful of films are
made on that subject, well, that's hardly tragic at all. It's
surprising more haven't been made.
bval...@aol.com
I guess that you were sick the day The Ethical Culture School on
Central Park West taught that selectively editing someone's work to
change their meaning is pretty much the same as lying. (I wonder if
the ECSCP even thought lying was bad, if it was done for the right
cause?)
The is what I ACTUALLY wrote, when you stated "However, there has never
been any indication that McCarthy possessed
VENONA intelligence at the time of his accusations,..."
I WROTE: "Why wouldn't he have had access to the information? We know
that he
worked closely with Hoover, and J. Edgar certainly had access to the
information.
>>>Because McCarthy was lying when he held that paper and said: "I have
here in my hand a list of 57 people that were known to the Secretary of
State as being members of the Communist Party, and who, nevertheless,
are still working and shaping the policy of the State Department.">>>
It seems to me that your argument boils down to "McCarthy was lying
because I say he was lying."
I repeat: Hoover had the Venona papers, and he worked closely with
McCarthy. We now know that hundreds of communists spies worked for the
State Department. Not
>>>>In the list you provided, ten people worked for the State Department.
So, what happened to the other 47? Are they just the
ones-who-got-away? >>>
I have you a wide selection of the people outted by the Venona papers.
I could spend hours digging up the other 47 names, but why would I do
that simply to have you delete the information?
>>>>History has proven McCarthy a liar, and you'll find that fact in any American history textbook. >>>
Well, I'm learning quite a bit about the ethics of athiests. When
confronted with facts you don't like, you simply delete them, and
resort to name calling. Two words to The Ethical Culture School on
Central Park West: Good work.
>>>> So, at the end of the day, McCarthy has been proven correct>>>>
>>>>I've read a great many books on McCarthyism.>>>>
How many of the books you read discussed Samuel Dickstein,a United
States Congressman who was paid by the Soviets? Were you educated
about Samuel's treason, or did the authors of those books neglect to
mention that little detail.
If they did mention him, and the hundreds like him, why aren't you
outraged?
The truth is out there - but not for the willfully ignorant.
>>>Your posts force me to question if you've read anything by Karl Marx.>>>>
Because your ego refuses to allow you to believe that an informed
person could disagree with you.
>>> His was an economic philosophy, one that need not be employed through dictatorship, despotism, or mass murder.>>>>
Think back to your days in The Ethical Culture School on Central Park
West. Remember how they told you that good athiests dealt with what
actually existed, unlike foolish Christians who lived in a world of
make believe?
I need that hard-nosed athiest right now - the one who judges a
philosophy not by the poetry of it's language, or the complexity of its
ideas, but by what happens when the philosophy is followed. I'm
perfectly comfortable with the idea that Karl Marx meant well when he
wrote his nonsense. I'm sure that the people who developed Thalidomide
wanted nothing but to end nausia for pregnant women. But after we
learned that it caused horrible birth defects, people didn't say "maybe
if we make the pregnant women to promise not to let their babies be
borned with defects, we can sell the drug again."
>>>>And that's how so many people can be Marxist but not Stalinist.>>>>
So, what? They don't care how much suffering they cause?
>>>Find a single statement by Daniel Ortega supporting Stalin's purges.>>>
I don't judge him by what he says. I judge him by what he did.
Newport
ro...@thetop.org (Bushwhacker)
Now there's "a musical that changed nothing." BFS.
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
stephen...@gmail.com
Mandelson! - The musical biography of Peter Mandelson.
Stephen
Newport
GUFFMAN should be adapted to the stage.
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
bval...@aol.com
----------------------------------
What a strange parallel universe you inhabit...
----------------------------------
"To the right, ever to the right..." >>>>
Now, that was a song sung by those evil conservatives, 1776. Let's
take a look at what else those evil righties say, and how it relates to
the Iraq war, shall we?
"What we do we do rationally
We never ever go off half-cocked, not we
Why begin till we know that we can win
And if we cannot win why bother to begin?
We say this game's not of our choosing
Why should we risk losing?
We are cool"
What part of those lyrics do you disagree?
Bushwhacker
>>>>."However, there has never been any indication that McCarthy possessed
>
> VENONA intelligence at the time of his accusations,>>>>
>
> Why wouldn't he have had access to the information? We know that he
> worked closely with Hoover, and J. Edgar certainly had access to the
> information.
>
Yep. *Very closely." I'm sure they had many closeted, oral sessions. And
there's no evidence
that Hoover had any of the VENONA evidence.
>
>>>>and McCarthy in fact accused the above of being Communists, not Soviet spies. >>>>
>
>
> So, these people where WORSE than McCarthy claimed.
>
Yet he produced no shred of evidence of that.
>>>>>Additionally,
>
> even VENONA and the Soviet files failed to produce evidence to support
> the claims against the vast majority of the people that McCarthy
> targeted.">>>
>
> Really? Can you can one person who McCarthy falsely accused?
>
There are dozens, probably hundreds. Look them up yourself. Probably the
most notable and vicious was
Gen. George Marshall.
>>>>>He was an alcoholic, closeted self-loathing homosexual (do you think his
>
> nickname "Tailgunner Joe" pertained to his war record -- which he also
> lied about?), whose entire career was filled with ethical failures and
> wildly varying, false accusations, who destroyed many innocent lives,
> and who finally drank himself to death. He was despised by virtually
> all
> Democrats and most Republicans, notably Eisenhower, and his name has
> become synonymous with oppressive witch hunts. You want to make him one
>
> of your heroes, then go for it. It's pretty much in line with your
> usual
> standards. >>>
>
> So, at the end of the day, McCarthy has been proven correct,
Where? Not in any respectable history book.
and all
> you have to cling to are personal attacks against a great man.
"Personal attacks" based on considerable evidence. And as I said, if you
are among the pathetic few who consider him a great man, it's not
surprising. It's called "consider the source."
>
> BTW, here's a partial list of communists who the Venona papers outed:
>
<irrelevant list snipped>
Which has nothing to do with Joseph McCarthy.
Bushwhacker
By golly, you're on to something. If Bush had had the brains of those
1776 conservatives, he wouldn't have gone off half-cocked, and we
wouldn't be in this disastrous, losing quagmire.
atsar...@hotmail.com
(based -- CLOSELY -- on the Preston Struges screenplay)
climaxing in the wedding night scene in the sleeping car, when "Eve"
tells Hoppsy about her "past" (patter song?) and he departs, crushed. I
would then have her sing a triumphant, ringing laughing song that would
segue into the 11 o'clock ballad as she realized she was still in love
with him and revenge wasn't what she wanted at all....
Then bring back the cruise ship guests singing the same gavotte chorale
as in Act I....
Jean Coeur de Lapin
Bill
how it relates to the Iraq war, shall we?
"What we do we do rationally
We never ever go off half-cocked, not we Why begin till we know that we
can win
And if we cannot win why bother to begin? We say this game's not of our
choosing
Why should we risk losing?
We are cool"
What part of those lyrics do you disagree? >>
.........................
Sherman Edwards was a very smart man, and very, very liberal.
Satire and irony be lost on the self-delusional paralogician.
Bill
Noel...@aol.com
> Jean Coeur de Lapin
I've had the same idea for years and years.
Sturges' Hail the Conquering Hero was the basis for a musical that
closed out of town; I believe Burt Shevelove was involved.
bval...@aol.com
> worked closely with Hoover, and J. Edgar certainly had access to the
> information.
>>>>Yep. *Very closely." I'm sure they had many closeted, oral sessions.>>>>
When liberals have nothing to say, they scream "racist", "sexist",
"homophobe" or "faggot".
>>>>And there's no evidence that Hoover had any of the VENONA evidence. >>>>
He was head of the FBI - of course he knew about the Venona
documents.
>>>>and McCarthy in fact accused the above of being Communists, not Soviet spies. >>>>
> So, these people where WORSE than McCarthy claimed.
>>>Yet he produced no shred of evidence of that. >>>
The Hell he didn't. On February 20, 1950, McCarthy gave the Senate
information about 81 individuals - the 57 referred to at Wheeling and
24 others of less importance and about whom the evidence was less
conclusive. He didn't release the accused names publicly, because to
do so would ruin their reputations without benefit of a trial. Four
times during McCarthy's February 20th speech, Senator Scott Lucas
demanded that McCarthy make the 81 names public, but McCarthy refused
to do so, responding that "if I were to give all the names involved, it
might leave a wrong impression. If we should label one man a communist
when he is not a communist, I think it would be too bad." What McCarthy
did was to identify the individuals only by case numbers, not by their
names.
>>>>>Additionally,
> even VENONA and the Soviet files failed to produce evidence to support
> the claims against the vast majority of the people that McCarthy
> targeted.">>>
> Really? Can you can one person who McCarthy falsely accused?
>>>There are dozens, probably hundreds.>>>>
I'm curious, how do you figure that McCarthy falsely accused hundreds,
when he only accused 46 people, total?
>>>> Look them up yourself.>>>>
Don't have to - I actually know what I'm talking about. From February
9, 1950 until January 1, 1953, Joe McCarthy publicly questioned the
loyalty or reliability of a grand total of 46 (count em, 46) persons,
and particularly dramatized the cases of only 24 of the 46. Many of
the 46 received a minor rebuke. For instance, McCarthy never said
anything more damaging about Lauchlin Currie, Gustavo Duran, Theodore
Geiger, Mary Jane Keeney, Edward Posniak, Haldore Hanson, and John
Carter Vincent, than that they are known to one or more responsible
persons as having been members of the Communist Party. This, of
course, was true.
>>> Probably the most notable and vicious was Gen. George Marshall.>>>>
Did McCarthy accuse Marshall of being a communist? No, he did not.
Did McCarthy accuse Marshall of being a homosexual, like you did
against the Senator? Nope. McCarthy was critical of Marshall's
accomplishments as General, and I feel that's fair game. What did
McCarthy say about Marshall personally? "I do not propose to go into
his motives," said McCarthy. "Unless one has all the tangled and often
complicated circumstances contributing to a man's decisions, an inquiry
into his motives is often fruitless. I do not pretend to understand
General Marshall's nature and character, and I shall leave that subject
to subtler analysts of human personality."
> So, at the end of the day, McCarthy has been proven correct,
>>>>Where? Not in any respectable history book. >>>
But then, you consider disagreeing with liberal doctrine to be a
unrespectable act.
> you have to cling to are personal attacks against a great man.
>>>"Personal attacks" based on considerable evidence.>>>
So far, your "considerable evidence" consists of trying to spread
rumors that McCarthy was a homosexual, making false statements then
demanding that I look up the evidence myself, and pointing out that a
made a minor typo in an earlier post.
>>>>And as I said, if you are among the pathetic few who consider him
a great man, it's not surprising. It's called "consider the source.">>>
Oh, that's right, and your "considerable evidence" also consists of
calling me names.
> BTW, here's a partial list of communists who the Venona papers outed:
<irrelevant list snipped>
Which has nothing to do with Joseph McCarthy. >>>>
Why is the fact that we have solid proof of hundreds and hundreds of
communists in high position during the 50s irrelevant to a discussion
about McCarthy - other than you have no legitimate answer to the facts.
Maybe you should stick to sceaming "faggot" at people when you're
losing an argument - it seems to be the only skill that you've
mastered.
bval...@aol.com
1776 conservatives, he wouldn't have gone off half-cocked, and we
wouldn't be in this disastrous, losing quagmire. >>>
And Saddam would still be in office, and might very well have a nuke
that he could pass on to his two lunatic sons.
bval...@aol.com
We never ever go off half-cocked, not we Why begin till we know that we
can win
And if we cannot win why bother to begin? We say this game's not of our
choosing
Why should we risk losing?
We are cool"
What part of those lyrics do you disagree? >>
.........................
Sherman Edwards was a very smart man, and very, very liberal.>>>
Yes, he's very smart, and very liberal. It doesn't change the fact
that "1776" is a musical about a small band of people who launched a
very dangerous war.
>>>>Satire and irony be lost on the self-delusional paralogician.>>>
The "Satire and irony be lost on the self-delusional" card is vastly
overused by the dim-witted left. If we compare current events to that
in the musical, George Bush is John Adams, while the anti-war crowd are
Dickinson, Thompson, Rutledge,
and Reade.
Bushwhacker
>>Why wouldn't he have had access to the information? We know that he
>>worked closely with Hoover, and J. Edgar certainly had access to the
>>information.
>
>
>
>>>>>Yep. *Very closely." I'm sure they had many closeted, oral sessions.>>>>
>
>
> When liberals have nothing to say, they scream "racist", "sexist",
> "homophobe" or "faggot".
>
I again point out that *you're* the only one who screams "faggot." And
you prove constantly (as in this latest response) that you're a
homophobe, so I don't need to point that out.
>>>>>And there's no evidence that Hoover had any of the VENONA evidence. >>>>
>
>
> He was head of the FBI - of course he knew about the Venona
> documents.
>
Then why didn't he convict more of the spies? Or even bring them to trial?
>
>>>>>and McCarthy in fact accused the above of being Communists, not Soviet spies. >>>>
>
>
>>So, these people where WORSE than McCarthy claimed.
>
>>>>Yet he produced no shred of evidence of that. >>>
>
>
> The Hell he didn't. On February 20, 1950, McCarthy gave the Senate
> information about 81 individuals - the 57 referred to at Wheeling and
> 24 others of less importance and about whom the evidence was less
> conclusive. He didn't release the accused names publicly, because to
> do so would ruin their reputations without benefit of a trial. Four
> times during McCarthy's February 20th speech, Senator Scott Lucas
> demanded that McCarthy make the 81 names public, but McCarthy refused
> to do so, responding that "if I were to give all the names involved, it
> might leave a wrong impression. If we should label one man a communist
> when he is not a communist, I think it would be too bad." What McCarthy
> did was to identify the individuals only by case numbers, not by their
> names.
>
Weren't you the one whining because one of your posts was "selectively
edited"? Well, I'd say it's pot, meet kettle. You left off the first
part of the paragraph:
"McCarthy himself was taken aback by the massive media response to the
Wheeling speech, and he was accused of continually revising both his
charges and his figures. In Salt Lake City, Utah, a few days later, he
cited a figure of 57, and in the Senate on February 20, he claimed 81.
During a marathon 6-hour speech, McCarthy fought Democratic attempts to
disclose the actual names of these people."
In other words, he was shooting off his mouth, just winging it without
any evidence, and when called on it, came up with a mealy-mouthed excuse.
>>>>>>Additionally,
>>
>>even VENONA and the Soviet files failed to produce evidence to support
>>the claims against the vast majority of the people that McCarthy
>>targeted.">>>
>
>
>>Really? Can you can one person who McCarthy falsely accused?
>
>
>>>>There are dozens, probably hundreds.>>>>
>
>
> I'm curious, how do you figure that McCarthy falsely accused hundreds,
> when he only accused 46 people, total?
>
His whole career was rife with false accusations, including the way he
lied himself to the Senate:
Again from Wikipedia:
"In his campaign, McCarthy attacked La Follette for not enlisting during
the war, even though La Follette had been 46 when Pearl Harbor was
bombed and had been exempted from military service in the first world
war on medical grounds. McCarthy also claimed La Follette had made huge
profits from his investments while he, McCarthy, had been away fighting
for his country. The suggestion that La Follette had been guilty of war
profiteering (his investments had, in fact, been in a radio station) was
deeply damaging, and McCarthy won the primary nomination 207,935 to
202,557".
>>>>>Look them up yourself.>>>>
>
>
> Don't have to - I actually know what I'm talking about. From February
> 9, 1950 until January 1, 1953, Joe McCarthy publicly questioned the
> loyalty or reliability of a grand total of 46 (count em, 46) persons,
> and particularly dramatized the cases of only 24 of the 46. Many of
> the 46 received a minor rebuke. For instance, McCarthy never said
> anything more damaging about Lauchlin Currie, Gustavo Duran, Theodore
> Geiger, Mary Jane Keeney, Edward Posniak, Haldore Hanson, and John
> Carter Vincent, than that they are known to one or more responsible
> persons as having been members of the Communist Party. This, of
> course, was true.
>
Source? And l note that highly questionable report covers only a
four-year period.
>>>>Probably the most notable and vicious was Gen. George Marshall.>>>>
>
>
> Did McCarthy accuse Marshall of being a communist? No, he did not.
No, even worse (being a communist was not, then or now, a crime). He
falsely accused him of treason. Fortunately, history has sorted it out
-- Marshall's revered, McCarthy's reviled.
> Did McCarthy accuse Marshall of being a homosexual, like you did
> against the Senator?
Accuse? Accuse? Your homophobia is showing -- again. I was just stating
a well-known truth. And the reasons I brought up his sexuality at all
were 1) like Hoover and his intimate "friend" Roy Cohn, he was a major
hyprocrite about his homosexuality; b) it really irritates your
homophobic self to hear about your heroes being gay.
>Nope. McCarthy was critical of Marshall's
> accomplishments as General, and I feel that's fair game.
He said that Marshall was part of a conspiracy to hand over China to the
Communists. I'd say that's more than "fair game," since no evidence of
such a conspiracy has ever come forth.
> What did
> McCarthy say about Marshall personally? "I do not propose to go into
> his motives," said McCarthy. "Unless one has all the tangled and often
> complicated circumstances contributing to a man's decisions, an inquiry
> into his motives is often fruitless. I do not pretend to understand
> General Marshall's nature and character, and I shall leave that subject
> to subtler analysts of human personality."
>
More selective editing, I see...
>
>>So, at the end of the day, McCarthy has been proven correct,
>
>
>
>>>>>Where? Not in any respectable history book. >>>
>
>
> But then, you consider disagreeing with liberal doctrine to be a
> unrespectable act.
>
Nope. Disagreeing with anything is perfectly respectable. Lying about,
and misrepresenting, history is "unrespectable."
>>you have to cling to are personal attacks against a great man.
>
>
>>>>"Personal attacks" based on considerable evidence.>>>
>
>
> So far, your "considerable evidence" consists of trying to spread
> rumors that McCarthy was a homosexual,
More than rumors, and spread long before I knew much about the man.
Columnist Drew Pearson wrote about McCarthy's sexual predilections in
1952. Also:
http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/usa/joseph-mccarthy/
25 Oct 1952 "Joe McCarthy is a bachelor of 43 years. [...] He seldom
dates girls and if he does he laughingly describes it as window
dressing. It is common talk among homosexuals in Milwaukee who
rendezvous in the White Horse Inn that Senator Joe McCarthy has often
engaged in homosexual activities." Hank Greenspun, Las Vegas Sun.
McCarthy briefly considered a suit but took no action, because it would
have meant testifying.
>making false statements then
> demanding that I look up the evidence myself, and pointing out that a
> made a minor typo in an earlier post.
>
> >>>>And as I said, if you are among the pathetic few who consider him
> a great man, it's not surprising. It's called "consider the source.">>>
>
> Oh, that's right, and your "considerable evidence" also consists of
> calling me names.
>
No name-calling there, just the usual doubts about your reasoning ability.
>>BTW, here's a partial list of communists who the Venona papers outed:
>
>
> <irrelevant list snipped>
> Which has nothing to do with Joseph McCarthy. >>>>
>
> Why is the fact that we have solid proof of hundreds and hundreds of
> communists in high position during the 50s irrelevant to a discussion
> about McCarthy - other than you have no legitimate answer to the facts.
Because it wasn't illegal to be a communist, and the vast majority of
those "in high position" were *never* guilty of anything. McCarthy built
his career on fear-mongering, was eventually slapped down for it, and is
justly condemned by history.
> Maybe you should stick to sceaming "faggot" at people when you're
> losing an argument - it seems to be the only skill that you've
> mastered.
As anyone reading this thread can tell, I haven't lost anything. And,
lest we forget, *you're* the *only* one who repeatedly screams "faggot."
Bushwhacker
Nope. He would have been as contained and impotent as he was from 1992
to 2003; thousands of innocent people, Americans and Iraqis, would still
be alive and whole; we would have troops available for an *actual*
threat; and we would have billions (soon to be trillions) of dollars
available for rebuilding infrastructure and actual protection against
terrorists instead of creating thousands of new ones.
Newport
well-written role. He's allowed to make a number of good points.
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Noel...@aol.com
> <irrelevant list snipped>
> Which has nothing to do with Joseph McCarthy. >>>>
>
> Why is the fact that we have solid proof of hundreds and hundreds of
> communists in high position during the 50s irrelevant to a discussion
> about McCarthy -
It wouldn't be irrelevant if it were true.
There is no proof that hundreds and hundreds of communists were ever in
a high position in the American government. The list you cut and
pasted here included the name of the leader of the American Communist
Party - are you counting him as someone in high position?
Accusing people with no proof is scurrilous in any age; it's high time
you stopped.
Harlett O'Dowd
Pssst. If you stop feeding the troll, it will stop.
bval...@aol.com
> wouldn't be in this disastrous, losing quagmire. >>>
> And Saddam would still be in office, and might very well have a nuke
> that he could pass on to his two lunatic sons.
>>>>Nope. He would have been as contained and impotent as he was from 1992 to 2003;>>>
You mean when he was openly handing $25,000 dollar checks to the
families of suicide bombers, pricing yellowcake, giving safe harbor to
terrorists, meeting with bin Laden's people, attempting to assassinate
a former US President, openly supporting terrorism and calling for
Iraqi's to murder American's everywhere in the world?
>>> thousands of innocent people,>>>>
Except that the lives of those thousands of innocent people would have
been bought with the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
You do know about the mass graves which were filled with women and
children, don't you? Actually, I'm sure that you don't care about
tortured women and children - the only thing with matter to you is
bringing down Bush.
>>>would still be alive and whole; we would have troops available for an *actual* threat; >>>
Bush the same way that one refuses to have yearly medical examines, so
that the money can be saved when an "actual" medical crisis occures.
We've PREVENTED crisises by bringing down Saddam.
Jason T
Conservatives' desire to stay out of a war with the liberals' of today
desire to stay out of the war in Iraq. Along the way, you suggest that
liberals didn't want to enter the war for fear of losing.
If I am correct, then your analogy is misdrawn.
The war being considered in 1776 was indeed not popular. However, it was
already well under way - and on the colonists' land, to boot. The British
were pressing their advantage on every front. Their navy was almost fully
represented in our harbors. Boston, Philidelphia, New York, Richmond, and
Baltimore were all over-run with British soldiers and British sympathizers.
Undo tariffs and taxes were being levied by the British on everything from
sugar to paper. In other words, the threat was HERE. Meanwhile, franklin
headed to France to try to get some help (which the French would not give
publicly for a while), and the raids and murders continued.
Now that's cause for a war.
To suggest even a parallel between that and our presence in Iraq is
irresponsible. Flag-waving and democracy are NOT good enough reasons to
travel halfway around the world and throw a country into civil war. A
nuclear threat might have been a good reason - had it ever existed.
Jason T.
<bval...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1145838461.4...@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
bval...@aol.com
> communists in high position during the 50s irrelevant to a discussion
> about McCarthy -
>>>>It wouldn't be irrelevant if it were true.>>>
I'm sorry, the existance of the Venona documents is not a topic which
honest, informed people, can disagree. They exist. They were
declassified by a Democratic Senator during the Clinton administration.
They outted communists in the State Department. Deal with it.
>>>There is no proof that hundreds and hundreds of communists were ever in
a high position in the American government. >>
Now you're drifting into Holocaust denial territory.
Newport
Re: New Musicals You'd Like to See?
----------------------------------
Perhaps he should try some of Captain Hook's poison cake.
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Miss Glamour
Umbrellas will be given to patrons in the first three rows.
Newport
From: j.mi...@verizon.net (Jason T)
Your analogy doesn't hold up. The war being considered in 1776 was
indeed not popular. However, it was already well under way - and on the
colonists' land, to boot. The British were pressing their advantage on
other words, the threat was HERE. To suggest even a parallel between
that and our presence in Iraq is irresponsible. A nuclear threat might
have been a good reason - had it ever existed.
And there *are* nuclear threats elsewhere.
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
bval...@aol.com
1776
Conservatives' desire to stay out of a war with the liberals' of today
desire to stay out of the war in Iraq. Along the way, you suggest that
liberals didn't want to enter the war for fear of losing.
If I am correct, then your analogy is misdrawn.
>>>>The war being considered in 1776 was indeed not popular. However, it was
already well under way - and on the colonists' land, to boot.>>>>
As is the War on Terror.
>>>>The British were pressing their advantage on every front.>>>>
Ditto.
>>>>>Their navy was almost fully represented in our harbors. Boston, Philidelphia, New York, Richmond, and Baltimore were all over-run with British soldiers and British sympathizers. Undo tariffs and taxes were being levied by the British on everything from sugar to paper. In other words, the threat was HERE. >>>>>
Actually, a better case can be made for retreat in 1776 than today.
After all, the British wanted nothing more than the status quo to
continue. Sure, we could have lost the dream of self rule, but
American's survived without it for centuries - we could have gotten
along without. OTOH, bin Laden demans that we surrender to them, ditch
the Constitutiion, and become a religious police state.
>>>>Meanwhile, franklin headed to France to try to get some help (which the French would not give publicly for a while), and the raids and murders continued. >>>>
Which would have all stopped had we simply had been reasonable, and
surrendered.
>>>Now that's cause for a war. >>>
And openly supporting terrorism isn't?
>>>>To suggest even a parallel between that and our presence in Iraq is irresponsible.>>>>
Oh, it's IRRESPONSIBLE to DARE to disagree with you, is it?
>>>> Flag-waving and democracy are NOT good enough reasons to travel halfway around the world and throw a country into civil war. >>>>
How about harboring members of al Qaida and other terrorist
organizations? Openly supporting terrorism, and writing checks to the
familiies of slugs who blow up pizza parlors? How about Saddam's
attempt to assassinate a former president of the United States? That
good enough for you?
>>> A nuclear threat might have been a good reason - had it ever existed. >>>>
There's no serious question that it once existed. We also know that
Saddam tried to by Yellowcake, to build nukes.
stephen...@gmail.com
bval...@aol.com wrote:
>> >>>> Flag-waving and democracy are NOT good enough reasons to travel halfway around the world and throw a country into civil war. >>>>
>
> How about harboring members of al Qaida and other terrorist
> organizations? Openly supporting terrorism, and writing checks to the
> familiies of slugs who blow up pizza parlors? How about Saddam's
> attempt to assassinate a former president of the United States? That
> good enough for you?
Speaking of harbouring and funding terrorists, I'm curious: What's your
position on US politicians who welcomed people wanted in connection
with IRA bombings into the United States? What's your position on those
idiot Irish-Americans who donated money to organisations like NORAID
and the Thirty-Two Counties Sovereignty Committee? (The link between
those organisations and the munitions funds of the IRA and The Real IRA
was conclusively established rather a long time ago).
Stephen
bval...@aol.com
> organizations? Openly supporting terrorism, and writing checks to the
> familiies of slugs who blow up pizza parlors? How about Saddam's
> attempt to assassinate a former president of the United States? That
> good enough for you?
>>>Speaking of harbouring and funding terrorists, I'm curious: What's your
position on US politicians who welcomed people wanted in connection
with IRA bombings into the United States? What's your position on those
idiot Irish-Americans who donated money to organisations like NORAID
and the Thirty-Two Counties Sovereignty Committee? (The link between
those organisations and the munitions funds of the IRA and The Real IRA
was conclusively established rather a long time ago). >>>
Terrorism is terrorism. Period. People who attack "soft targets"
(shopping malls, discos, theaters, ect.) should be slapped up against
the wall and shot. Period.
People who knowingly support terrorists should be slapped up against
the wall, and shot. Period.
Jason T
<bval...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1146356427....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>The war being considered in 1776 was indeed not popular. However, it
>>>>>was
> already well under way - and on the colonists' land, to boot.>>>>
>
> As is the War on Terror.
Except for the fact that Britain is a country with leaders and such and
"terror" is an abstract. There's no way to wage war on the ideal of terror
any more than you can wage war on drugs or poverty. And there is certainly
no way to draw comparisons between a war fought on the ground in Iraq and a
struggle to end global terrorism. The war we're fighting in Iraq is not a
"war on terror", it is/was a war on Hussein, and any number of insurgents
(that we helped to create, of course).
>
>>>>>The British were pressing their advantage on every front.>>>>
>
> Ditto.
Ditto.
>
>>>>>>Their navy was almost fully represented in our harbors. Boston,
>>>>>>Philidelphia, New York, Richmond, and Baltimore were all over-run with
>>>>>>British soldiers and British sympathizers. Undo tariffs and taxes were
>>>>>>being levied by the British on everything from sugar to paper. In
>>>>>>other words, the threat was HERE. >>>>>
>
> Actually, a better case can be made for retreat in 1776 than today.
> After all, the British wanted nothing more than the status quo to
> continue. Sure, we could have lost the dream of self rule, but
> American's survived without it for centuries - we could have gotten
> along without. OTOH, bin Laden demans that we surrender to them, ditch
> the Constitutiion, and become a religious police state.
But it would have been OUR retreat on OUR land with OUR citizens and
civilians.
>
>>>>>Meanwhile, franklin headed to France to try to get some help (which the
>>>>>French would not give publicly for a while), and the raids and murders
>>>>>continued. >>>>
>
> Which would have all stopped had we simply had been reasonable, and
> surrendered.
I don't think you're really advocating that. I think you're just extending
your point. And I suppose you're right, if we'd let up they would have let
up.
>
>>>>Now that's cause for a war. >>>
>
> And openly supporting terrorism isn't?
Rhetoric.
>
>>>>>To suggest even a parallel between that and our presence in Iraq is
>>>>>irresponsible.>>>>
>
> Oh, it's IRRESPONSIBLE to DARE to disagree with you, is it?
That's not what I said and you know it. I was trying to say that it is
dangerous and naive to suggest a parallel between the American war of
independence and the war we're fighting in Iraq.
>
>>>>> Flag-waving and democracy are NOT good enough reasons to travel
>>>>> halfway around the world and throw a country into civil war. >>>>
>
> How about harboring members of al Qaida and other terrorist
> organizations? Openly supporting terrorism, and writing checks to the
> familiies of slugs who blow up pizza parlors? How about Saddam's
> attempt to assassinate a former president of the United States? That
> good enough for you?
You just described Saudi Arabia and Iran. I notice that our leaders have
found reasons (albeit extremely different ones) for staying out of these
countries.
>
>>>> A nuclear threat might have been a good reason - had it ever existed.
>>>> >>>>
>
> There's no serious question that it once existed. We also know that
> Saddam tried to by Yellowcake, to build nukes.
You're not fooling anyone. For some reason many people in our country
refuse to see that this war was started with Powell, Cheney, Bush, Rice,
Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld all assuring us that there were WMDs in Iraq. Since
then, those statements have been so thouroughly refuted by all major and
minor news organizations that Bush et al have resorted to changing the
reason of the war to freeing the oppressed citizens of Iraq. It's like the
bait and switch tactic the used car dealers employ. It's frustrating that
there are still people holding on to the belief that there were nukes laying
around. Move on ... Bush and the others have.
Jason T.
Jason T
<bval...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1146367503.7...@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Terrorism is terrorism. Period. People who attack "soft targets"
> (shopping malls, discos, theaters, ect.) should be slapped up against
> the wall and shot. Period.
>
> People who knowingly support terrorists should be slapped up against
> the wall, and shot. Period.
>
I know I'm about to make a lot of people mad (many more than just bvallely),
but why do we talk like this? Why do we throw out our chests and blow
through our collective mustache? I can't imagine being responsible for
anyone's death - whether an innocent at a shopping mall or a mass murderer
thrown against a wall. Are there really people who feel this way? Or is
this just an aliteral form of bravado?
I'm really asking, by the way, I'm not baiting or being facecious.
Jason T.
bval...@aol.com
"terror" is an abstract. There's no way to wage war on the ideal of
terror
any more than you can wage war on drugs or poverty.>>>>
Thomas Jefferson, the man who wrote the Declaration of Independence,
did exactly that. He declared war on the idea of piracy. He created
the Marines to do so.
> Actually, a better case can be made for retreat in 1776 than today.
> After all, the British wanted nothing more than the status quo to
> continue. Sure, we could have lost the dream of self rule, but
> American's survived without it for centuries -- we could have gotten
> along without. OTOH, bin Laden demands that we surrender to them, ditch
> the Constitution, and become a religious police state.
>>>>But it would have been OUR retreat on OUR land with OUR citizens and
civilians.>>>>>
Work with me here, because you're coming off as a lunatic. Are you
honestly saying that surrender is preferable to victory, as long as
it's OUR surrender?
>>>>>Meanwhile, franklin headed to France to try to get some help (which the
>>>>>French would not give publicly for a while), and the raids and murders
>>>>>continued. >>>>
> Which would have all stopped had we simply had been reasonable, and
> surrendered.
>>>>I don't think you're really advocating that.>>>
You're right - I'm ridiculing you. And I'm not being subtle about
it, either.
>>>>Now that's cause for a war. >>>
> And openly supporting terrorism isn't?
>>>>Rhetoric. >>>>
Excuse me, Saddam Hussain openly supported terrorism. His state run
papers have called for every American on Earth to be hunted down and
killed. There is nothing rhetorical about Saddam. He filled mass
graves with the bodies of hundreds of thousands of women and children.
He has used WMD against innocents. He has paid the families of bombers
who killed children in shopping malls. He is an evil man who wants you
dead.
>>>>>>>>To suggest even a parallel between that and our presence in Iraq is
>>>>>irresponsible.>>>>
> Oh, it's IRRESPONSIBLE to DARE to disagree with you, is it?
That's not what I said and you know it. >>>
Excuse me, that is EXACTLY what you said.
>>>. I was trying to say that it is dangerous and naive to suggest a parallel between the American war of
independence and the war we're fighting in Iraq. >>>
Expressing ideas you disagree with is DANGEROUS, you say? Well, why
didn't you say so. That makes it all better. Why don't you organize a
party where you collect books which suggest such a thing, and burn
them? After all, we mustn't allow DANGEROUS ideas to be expressed,
must we? While the books burn, you and your friends, (all dressed in
trendy black shirts) could hold hands and sing "Tomorrow Belongs To Me"
>>>> How about harboring members of al Qaida and other terrorist
> organizations? Openly supporting terrorism, and writing checks to the
> familiies of slugs who blow up pizza parlors? How about Saddam's
> attempt to assassinate a former president of the United States? That
> good enough for you?
>>>>You just described Saudi Arabia and Iran. I notice that our leaders have
found reasons (albeit extremely different ones) for staying out of
these
countries. >>>
Yes, because we can't take on every terrorist state at once. Instead,
we take the terrorist states down one at a time.
>>>.> There's no serious question that it once existed. We also know that
> Saddam tried to by Yellowcake, to build nukes.
You're not fooling anyone. For some reason many people in our country
refuse to see that this war was started with Powell, Cheney, Bush,
Rice,
Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld all assuring us that there were WMDs in
Iraq.>>>>
And Clinton, Kennedy, Kerry, the French, the Brits, virtually everyone.
And Saddam himself.
Now I have a question for you:
WHERE ARE THE WMD?
We know for a fact that Saddam had them. He admitted having them, and
he used them.
Where are they?
We haven't found a shred of evidence that they were destroyed.
So, where did Saddam ship them to?
Who has them?
Jason T
<bval...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1146378513....@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Except for the fact that Britain is a country with leaders and such and
>
> "terror" is an abstract. There's no way to wage war on the ideal of
> terror
> any more than you can wage war on drugs or poverty.>>>>
>
> Thomas Jefferson, the man who wrote the Declaration of Independence,
> did exactly that. He declared war on the idea of piracy. He created
> the Marines to do so.
>
It was silly then and it's silly now. It's not difficult to see a
politician's hand in this type of branding. It's as vague and ineffective
as "save the children" or "save the whales".
>> Actually, a better case can be made for retreat in 1776 than today.
>> After all, the British wanted nothing more than the status quo to
>> continue. Sure, we could have lost the dream of self rule, but
>> American's survived without it for centuries -- we could have gotten
>> along without. OTOH, bin Laden demands that we surrender to them, ditch
>> the Constitution, and become a religious police state.
>
>>>>>But it would have been OUR retreat on OUR land with OUR citizens and
> civilians.>>>>>
>
> Work with me here, because you're coming off as a lunatic. Are you
> honestly saying that surrender is preferable to victory, as long as
> it's OUR surrender?
No, that's not what I'm saying and I know you're smarter than that. The
point was not victory or surrender, the point is "OUR". The original
thought was a comparison of the war in 1776 with the war in Iraq. The
difference between the two is is who is fighting for what.
>
>>>>>>Meanwhile, franklin headed to France to try to get some help (which
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>French would not give publicly for a while), and the raids and murders
>>>>>>continued. >>>>
>
>> Which would have all stopped had we simply had been reasonable, and
>> surrendered.
>
>
>>>>>I don't think you're really advocating that.>>>
>
> You're right - I'm ridiculing you. And I'm not being subtle about
> it, either.
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Why ridicule?
>
>>>>>Now that's cause for a war. >>>
>
>> And openly supporting terrorism isn't?
>
>
>>>>>Rhetoric. >>>>
>
> Excuse me, Saddam Hussain openly supported terrorism. His state run
> papers have called for every American on Earth to be hunted down and
> killed. There is nothing rhetorical about Saddam. He filled mass
> graves with the bodies of hundreds of thousands of women and children.
> He has used WMD against innocents. He has paid the families of bombers
> who killed children in shopping malls. He is an evil man who wants you
> dead.
That's rhetorical. A perfect example, actually. Those are large words with
simplistic ideas meant to raise my hackles and spurn me to fight. These
words don't actually accomplish anything. They're rhetorical. By branding
someone or something with general terms like "good" and "evil" we put a
simple name to a much more complex scenario. Anyone who thinks that the
current goings-on in Iraq come down to a "good" nation fighting an "evil"
man is over-simplifying the situation which isn't going to help anything.
Besides, that evil man is incarcerated. Oh, and we can't keep seem to
supply the former citizens of that evil man with basics like water and
power.
>
>>>>>>>>>To suggest even a parallel between that and our presence in Iraq is
>>>>>>irresponsible.>>>>
>
>> Oh, it's IRRESPONSIBLE to DARE to disagree with you, is it?
>
>
> That's not what I said and you know it. >>>
>
> Excuse me, that is EXACTLY what you said.
No, it's not. The disagreement is not dangerous. I have no problem with
your disagreeing with me. I have a problem with comparing apples and
oranges to solicit a nationalistic warm fuzzy.
>
>>>>. I was trying to say that it is dangerous and naive to suggest a
>>>>parallel between the American war of
> independence and the war we're fighting in Iraq. >>>
>
> Expressing ideas you disagree with is DANGEROUS, you say? Well, why
> didn't you say so. That makes it all better. Why don't you organize a
> party where you collect books which suggest such a thing, and burn
> them? After all, we mustn't allow DANGEROUS ideas to be expressed,
> must we? While the books burn, you and your friends, (all dressed in
> trendy black shirts) could hold hands and sing "Tomorrow Belongs To Me"
Stop it! Stop generalizing. You don't know me any better than I know you.
Stop placing me in a box as if I'm some automaton regurgitating maxims from
the fatherland. I've done no such thing to you. It should be obvious by
now that I don't believe in suppressing dangerous ideas. I have no problem
with you, a neo-nazi, or a racist expressing their opinion. But I'll be
happy to take a shot at the points expressed. Do you see the difference?
I'm not saying you're stupid, ridiculous, or dangerous. I'm asking you to
be clear with your points. These kind of arguments are worthwhile if
everyone keeps things honest, factual, and impersonal.
>
>>>>> How about harboring members of al Qaida and other terrorist
>> organizations? Openly supporting terrorism, and writing checks to the
>> familiies of slugs who blow up pizza parlors? How about Saddam's
>> attempt to assassinate a former president of the United States? That
>> good enough for you?
>
>
>>>>>You just described Saudi Arabia and Iran. I notice that our leaders
>>>>>have
> found reasons (albeit extremely different ones) for staying out of
> these
> countries. >>>
>
> Yes, because we can't take on every terrorist state at once. Instead,
> we take the terrorist states down one at a time.
I think you have a lot more faith in our leaders than I do. This is a point
I simply disagree with.
>
>>>>.> There's no serious question that it once existed. We also know that
>> Saddam tried to by Yellowcake, to build nukes.
>
>
> You're not fooling anyone. For some reason many people in our country
> refuse to see that this war was started with Powell, Cheney, Bush,
> Rice,
> Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld all assuring us that there were WMDs in
> Iraq.>>>>
>
> And Clinton, Kennedy, Kerry, the French, the Brits, virtually everyone.
Based on altered evidence later refuted.
>
> And Saddam himself.
>
> Now I have a question for you:
>
> WHERE ARE THE WMD?
Great question.
>
> We know for a fact that Saddam had them. He admitted having them, and
> he used them.
He had no more than pretty much every dictator and despot currently ruling
(and he had less than we do). That's the crux of my whole argument with
this war.
>
> Where are they?
>
> We haven't found a shred of evidence that they were destroyed.
We've also found no evidence that they existed in any large capacity -
larger than, say, Iran, North Korea, or Sudan.
>
> So, where did Saddam ship them to?
>
> Who has them?
>
I don't believe they existed in teh numbers that you do.
Now, please, stop ridiculing. I enjoy hearing your arguments. I see no
reason that things should become so acerbic.
Jason T.
Newport
atsar...@hotmail.com
The Lady Eve
---------------------------------
BALL OF FIRE.
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
bval...@aol.com
> the wall, and shot. Period.
>>>>I know I'm about to make a lot of people mad (many more than just bvallely),
but why do we talk like this? >>>>
I suggest that your rent Frank Capra's "Why We Fight".
Newport
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
bval...@aol.com
> did exactly that. He declared war on the idea of piracy. He created
> the Marines to do so.
>>>>It was silly then and it's silly now.>>>>
Only if you believe freedom is "silly."
>> Actually, a better case can be made for retreat in 1776 than today.
>> After all, the British wanted nothing more than the status quo to
>> continue. Sure, we could have lost the dream of self rule, but
>> American's survived without it for centuries -- we could have gotten
>> along without. OTOH, bin Laden demands that we surrender to them, ditch
>> the Constitution, and become a religious police state.
>>>>>But it would have been OUR retreat on OUR land with OUR citizens and
> civilians.>>>>>
> Work with me here, because you're coming off as a lunatic. Are you
> honestly saying that surrender is preferable to victory, as long as
> it's OUR surrender?
>>>>No, that's not what I'm saying and I know you're smarter than that. >>>
It may not be what you meant, but it's what you said.
>>> The point was not victory or surrender, the point is "OUR".>>>>
I'm sorry, the above sentence is utterly without meaning. You may
think that you're coming off as deep - you actually sound like an
idiot.
>>>>The original thought was a comparison of the war in 1776 with the war in Iraq. The difference between the two is who is fighting for what. >>>
In both cases, we're fighting for independence. In both cases, people
like you do not feel that freedom is worth the price.
>>>>>>Meanwhile, franklin headed to France to try to get some help (which
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>French would not give publicly for a while), and the raids and murders
>>>>>>continued. >>>>
>> Which would have all stopped had we simply had been reasonable, and
>> surrendered.
>>>>>I don't think you're really advocating that.>>>
> You're right - I'm ridiculing you. And I'm not being subtle about
> it, either.
>>>>I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Why ridicule?>>>
Because what you've written is ridiculous.
>>>>>Now that's cause for a war. >>>
>> And openly supporting terrorism isn't?
>>>>>Rhetoric. >>>>
> Excuse me, Saddam Hussain openly supported terrorism. His state run
> papers have called for every American on Earth to be hunted down and
> killed. There is nothing rhetorical about Saddam. He filled mass
> graves with the bodies of hundreds of thousands of women and children.
> He has used WMD against innocents. He has paid the families of bombers
> who killed children in shopping malls. He is an evil man who wants you
> dead.
>>>>That's rhetorical. A perfect example, actually. >>>
rhetorical
1. of effective use of language: relating to the skill of using
language effectively and persuasively
2. bombastic: relating to or using language that is elaborate or
fine-sounding but insincere
>>> Those are large words with
simplistic ideas meant to raise my hackles and spurn me to fight.>>>>
You believe that my paragraph was "elaborate"? If so, you're either a
liar or an idiot. I used simple words to state gut truths.
>>>...words don't actually accomplish anything.>>>>
Sure, they did. They told the ugly truth.
>>> They're rhetorical.>>>>
They're the truth.
>> By branding someone or something with general terms like "good" and "evil" we put a simple name to a much more complex scenario.>>>>
Really? You're so soul-dead that you can't see that ethnic-cleansing
is evil? Or a child being raped in front of her parents by the state?
Are you than hollow inside?
>>>>Anyone who thinks that the current goings-on in Iraq come down to a "good" nation fighting an "evil" man is over-simplifying the situation which isn't going to help anything. >>>>
The mass graves are no longer being filled. The professional rapists
are now arrested. The families of bombers are no longer getting fat
checks because their sons killed children. Sounds helpful to me.
>>>>Besides, that evil man is incarcerated. Oh, and we can't keep seem to supply the former citizens of that evil man with basics like water and
power. >>>
Did you know that Saddam allowed children to starve in the street while
he used UN approved "Food For Oil" money to construct seventeen
football stadium sized palaces for his personal use? Each palace cost
about a billion dollars, and that's using slave labor.
But we must not call such actions "evil". Nooooooooooo, to do so would
be culturally insensitive.
>>>>>>>>>To suggest even a parallel between that and our presence in Iraq is
>>>>>>irresponsible.>>>>
>> Oh, it's IRRESPONSIBLE to DARE to disagree with you, is it?
> That's not what I said and you know it. >>>
> Excuse me, that is EXACTLY what you said.
>>>>No, it's not. The disagreement is not dangerous. I have no problem with your disagreeing with me.>>>
Ah, so now you've backpedaled from "dangerous" to "a problem."
>>> I have a problem with comparing apples and oranges to solicit a nationalistic warm fuzzy. >>
No, I think that you just like saying "nationalistic warm fuzzy." It's
a meaningless phrase, but it makes liberals feel, well, warm and fuzzy.
>>>>. I was trying to say that it is dangerous and naive to suggest a
>>>>parallel between the American war of
> independence and the war we're fighting in Iraq. >>>
> Expressing ideas you disagree with is DANGEROUS, you say? Well, why
> didn't you say so. That makes it all better. Why don't you organize a
> party where you collect books which suggest such a thing, and burn
> them? After all, we mustn't allow DANGEROUS ideas to be expressed,
> must we? While the books burn, you and your friends, (all dressed in
> trendy black shirts) could hold hands and sing "Tomorrow Belongs To Me"
>>>>Stop it!>>>>
Make me.
>>> Stop generalizing. >>>>
Stop making idiotic statement.
>>> You don't know me any better than I know you. >>>>
I judge you by what you write. And what you write is idiocy.
>>>>Stop placing me in a box as if I'm some automaton regurgitating maxims from
the fatherland.>>>
Then stop supporting fascists.
>>>> I've done no such thing to you. >>>>
I didn't say that you did. I pointed out that book burning is the
logical conclusion of your premise.
>>>> It should be obvious by now that I don't believe in suppressing dangerous ideas.>>>
Why not? If ideas are dangerous, why not crush them? Stalin did. (I
suppose that you believe Stalin was just as good as anyone else, don't
you?)
>>>> I have no problem with you, a neo-nazi, or a racist expressing
their opinion.>>>
I understand that you have no problems with neo-nazis and racists
expressing their opinions. After all, you think that we had no
business stopping Saddam's ethnic cleansing. But what about people who
disagree with you?
>>> But I'll be
happy to take a shot at the points expressed. Do you see the
difference?>>>
Yes. You're trying to back-peddle.
>>>I'm not saying you're stupid, ridiculous, or dangerous.>>>
You most certainly did say that my ideas were dangerous.
>>> I'm asking you to be clear with your points.>>>>
You said nothing of the sort. You said that my ideas were dangerous.
>>> These kind of arguments are worthwhile if
everyone keeps things honest, factual, and impersonal.
>>>> Yes, because we can't take on every terrorist state at once. Instead,
> we take the terrorist states down one at a time. >>
>>>I think you have a lot more faith in our leaders than I do. >>>
Ah. So, how do you feel that terrorism should be handled? Talk til
we're blue in the face with the terrorists? That worked well in North
Korea, didn't it?
>>>>.> There's no serious question that it once existed. We also know that
>> Saddam tried to by Yellowcake, to build nukes.
> You're not fooling anyone. For some reason many people in our country
> refuse to see that this war was started with Powell, Cheney, Bush,
> Rice,
> Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld all assuring us that there were WMDs in
> Iraq.>>>>
> And Clinton, Kennedy, Kerry, the French, the Brits, virtually everyone.
>>>>Based on altered evidence later refuted. >>>
Oh, you're talking about the Yellowcake? Funny thing, Joe Wilson's
actual report strenghthen the idea that Saddam tried to buy the
material.
> And Saddam himself.
> Now I have a question for you:
> WHERE ARE THE WMD?
>>>Great question.>>>
One that the Republicans should be asking liberals.
> We know for a fact that Saddam had them. He admitted having them, and
> he used them.
>>>He had no more than pretty much every dictator and despot currently ruling
(and he had less than we do). That's the crux of my whole argument
with
this war.>>>
Unlike those other dictators and despots, Saddam had the bad taste to
actually use them. He was very open about making them, where are they?
Where did he ship them to?
> Where are they?
> We haven't found a shred of evidence that they were destroyed.
>>>We've also found no evidence that they existed in any large capacity -
larger than, say, Iran, North Korea, or Sudan.>>>
Here's some good news about Iran. Because we now have troops in Iraq,
Iran is now surrounded. Why do you think that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
is trying to egg American into bombing them? Because they have run out
of other options. Iraq has emboldened the freedom loving section of
Iran's population, and the mullahs are scared to death. About North
Korea, Bill Clinton gave them the funds and materials to create nukes
- making the situation a hundred times more complicated.
> So, where did Saddam ship them to?
> Who has them?
>>>I don't believe they existed in teh numbers that you do.>>>
Let's see if I've got this straight. A guy who would let people
starve in the street; gassed 10,000 families for no particular reason;
filled mass graves with women and children; paid families to strap
bombs on their sons to blow up pizza parlors; chuckled warmly when his
sons tortured athletes who didn't bring home gold metals from the
Olympics; and who invaded his neighbors without provocation several
times didn't want too many WMD hanging around? Why not? What in
Saddam's history would lead you to believe he was anything but a
power-mad despot?
Jason T
clarify your points so that you would have a chance of sounding thoughtful.
I've continued through multiple iterations on this thread so that each of us
can refine our points and actually say what we mean. You are determined to
portion the world into two sides. You are determined to attack others
instead of passionately focusing on the argument. You consistently take
things out of context. You rely on wikipedia way too much - there's not a
person on this newsgroup who doesn't know what rhetorical means and doesn't
understand exactly the point I was making.
It's sad, really. This kind of discussion could be good for us and so many
others. A chance to speak clearly about things we hold dear. A chance to
understand another's passions. The record will show (although, I suppose
I'm the only one who cares) that I aimed to be factual and upright and that
you chose, instead, to be petty. If you would stop being so defensive,
people might care to listen to what you have to say. Knee-jerk reactions
and lists copied from wikipedia won't cut it.
I admit that I've hung in there with you longer than others on this
newsgroup. I actually convinced myself that I was being honorable by
avoiding the bait and trying to speak rationally. I was wrong and they were
right - is that two-sided enough for you?
This is a newsgroup peopled with intelligent, well-read, thoughtful people
of all kinds. A discussion held here should be informative, passionate,
well-worded, and wise. Too often it turns into something else. I think
that's a shame. There's so much we could all learn from each other.
Jason T.
<bval...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1146411958.0...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Newport
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Newport
In his case, one-note politics. War apologist.
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
bval...@aol.com
Well, isn't that big of you? You gave me the benefit of the doubt.
You gave me every chance to agree with you, and thug that I am, I
insisted on saying what I believed.
>>>>It's sad, really. This kind of discussion could be good for us and so many
others. A chance to speak clearly about things we hold dear. A chance
to
understand another's passions. The record will show (although, I
suppose
I'm the only one who cares) that I aimed to be factual and upright and
that
you chose, instead, to be petty. >>>>
Ah!!! "Factual and upright," are you? Let's take a look at your
evenhanded, fact-filled remarks, shall we?
"Why do we throw out our chests and blow through our collective
mustache?"
"Are there really people who feel this way? Or is this just an
aliteral form of bravado?"
"You're not fooling anyone."
"Rhetoric."
"Those are large words with simplistic ideas meant to raise my hackles
and spurn me to fight."
"They're rhetorical."
"To suggest even a parallel between that and our presence in Iraq is
irresponsible."
"I was trying to say that it is dangerous and naive to suggest a
parallel between the American war of independence and the war we're
fighting in Iraq."
"But it would have been OUR retreat on OUR land with OUR citizens and
civilians"
>>>>>>I admit that I've hung in there with you longer than others on this
newsgroup. I actually convinced myself that I was being honorable by
avoiding the bait and trying to speak rationally. >>>>
Be careful, you're going to break your arm patting yourself on the back
like that.
>>>>I was wrong and they were right - is that two-sided enough for you? >>>>>>>>
So, in your world, the two sides of an issue consists of people who
share your views and believe in trying to belittle people who disagree,
vs. people who share your view and don't want to talk to people who
hold different views.
Sadly, that's about as open-minded as the modern liberal gets.
Let me tell you what I think ACTUALLY happened, OK? We were happily
having our discussion - you lobbing talking point from Daily Kos and
me easily knocking your softballs out of the park. Suddenly, you ran
out of talking points. I was making statements which you had no easy
answers. Here's an example:
DAILY KOS TALKING POINT: I don't believe (WMD) existed in the numbers
that you do.
BVALLELY'S WISE, EVENHANDED AND UNDERSTATED RESPONSE: Let's see if I've
got this straight. Saddam is a guy who:
· let children literally starve to death on the street while he
plundered their milk money to build seventeen football-stadium-sized
palaces;
· openly used WMD on 10,000 families for no particular reason;
· filled mass graves with women and children;
· paid families to strap bombs on their sons to blow up pizza
parlors;
· openly bragged about having WMD;
· chuckled warmly when his sons permanently crippled athletes who
didn't bring home gold metals from the Olympics;
· repeatedly invaded neighboring nations without provocation;
· ignored 17 resolutions from the UN;
· dropped citizens feet first into wood chippers;
· had professional rapists violate wives in front of their husbands;
· tortured children in front of their parents;
· repeatedly threw out UN inspectors;
· attempted to kill a former US president;
· buried 57 fighter jets in the sand;
· allowed terrorists to train in Iraq;
· gave terrorists a comfortable retirement in Iraq. (You know the
opera "The Death of Klinghoffer"? The guy who pushed a crippled old
man into the ocean was found in Iraq;)
· commanded the fourth largest army in the world;
· was stupid enough to take on the United States of America...twice.
But the guy who did all of the above didn't want too many WMD hanging
around? Why not? Lack of closet space? Bad color coordination?
Limited funds? Overly ethical scientists? Pangs of conscience? Why?
What in Saddam's history would lead you to believe he didn't collect
WMD?
Of course, you're not going to answer this question - because the
Daily Kos didn't give you a pithy one liner to cover it.
bval...@aol.com
Excuse me, NUMBport, YOU were the one who turned the topic to politics.
Remember? You wanted a musical of "the Front"?
bval...@aol.com
Excuse me, NUMBport, YOU were the one who turned the topic to politics.
Bill
collective mustache? I can't imagine being responsible for anyone's
death - whether an innocent at a shopping mall or a mass murderer thrown
against a wall. Are there really people who feel this way? Or is this
just an aliteral form of bravado? >>
I call it Patriotic Masturbation, Jason. It makes the small man feel big
and important and part of the larger picture; anyone who argues the
point is called traitor, or worse.
We saw so much of it after 9/11 I thought it would replace In God We
Trust as the U.S.'s misplaced motto.
It's all puffery and preening and false pride and means absolutely
nothing.
Bill
stephen...@gmail.com
So, given that the USA provided a refuge - well, visas - for people who
were known to be wanted for their participation in IRA bombings, would
not the UK have been justified in, say, rallying the international
community to put economic sanctions into place against America until
such time as those persons were extradited? Does the fact that numerous
very, very stupid Irish-Americans funded terrorism via their donations
mean that the UK would have been justified in, say, bombing South
Boston?
I'm beign facetious. Slightly. I'm also, though, somehow curious to
know how you feel about the fact that the Reagan administration sold
arms to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and to the Taliban following the
Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
Stephen
stephen...@gmail.com
Jason T wrote:
> <bval...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1146367503.7...@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Terrorism is terrorism. Period. People who attack "soft targets"
> > (shopping malls, discos, theaters, ect.) should be slapped up against
> > the wall and shot. Period.
> >
> > People who knowingly support terrorists should be slapped up against
> > the wall, and shot. Period.
> >
>
> I know I'm about to make a lot of people mad (many more than just bvallely),
He's there already.
> but why do we talk like this? Why do we throw out our chests and blow
> through our collective mustache? I can't imagine being responsible for
> anyone's death - whether an innocent at a shopping mall or a mass murderer
> thrown against a wall. Are there really people who feel this way? Or is
> this just an aliteral form of bravado?
I'm as puzzled as you are - I, yes, also find it rather offensive; one
of the great salutary lessons of the Northern Ireland situation - and
of Iraq, Vietnam, Israel and an endless list of other very sad
situations - is that violence only ever begets more violence. That, in
fact, when it comes down to it, is why 9/11 happened (which is *not* an
argument that 9/11 - or any other act of terrorism - was justified; it
was indefensible and horrific. It was, however, brought about by
resentment of America's disastrous foreign policy).
Stephen
stephen...@gmail.com
Right.
The rhetoric about bombing Afghanistan into the Middle Ages was
particularly appalling, not least because it betrayed *total* ignorance
of the region's politics. Anyone who knew anything about Afghanistan at
that point would have realised that it was there already.
There's this amazing disconnect in big chunks of right-wing America
when it comes to the way people perceive their country's relationship
with the rest of the world. On the one hand, there's this unshakeable
faith that the USA is bigger and more important than any other country,
and its foreign policies should therefore trump everyone else's. On the
other hand, when it comes to anti-American sentiment in, say, the
Middle East, there's this *absolute* lack of understanding of why
America, in some quarters, is so hated, and of why American foreign
policy decisions are the root cause of that hatred.
Stephen
bval...@aol.com
of the great salutary lessons of the Northern Ireland situation - and
of Iraq, Vietnam, Israel and an endless list of other very sad
situations - is that violence only ever begets more violence. That, in
fact, when it comes down to it, is why 9/11 happened (which is *not* an
argument that 9/11 - or any other act of terrorism - was justified; it
was indefensible and horrific. It was, however, brought about by
resentment of America's disastrous foreign policy). >>>>
Ah, so you go by the theory that we should "talk until we're blue in
the face" with terrorists to find common ground?
A couple of questions, sparky:
· What could the Jews have said to Hitler to get him to close
Buchenwald?
· What insight could the intellectuals have shared with Stalin to
stop the cattle-car ride to Siberia?
· What was left out of the seventeen resolutions to Saddam that
would have made the difference?
· What poem would have softened the heart of Pol Pot?
· What magic words would you whisper into President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad ear to give up his threats to nuke Israel? (BTW, you
better save your extra special magic words for this guy... his WMD can
reach Europe.)
· If only Bill Clinton had listened to Kim Jong Il, and given him
the money he needed for food, they wouldn't be a nuclear power right
now. Oh, wait, Clinton DID do that, didn't he?
>>>That, in fact, when it comes down to it, is why 9/11 happened...>>>
The reason 911 happened is because the terrorists weren't afraid of
America. They are now.
>>>> (which is *not* an argument that 9/11 - or any other act of terrorism - was justified; it was indefensible and horrific. It was, however, brought about by resentment of America's disastrous foreign policy). >>>>
See, we can agree. I completely agree that 911 was caused by Clinton's
disasterous foreign policy. Clinton let the terrorist get away with
literal genocide, and emboldened them.
stephen...@gmail.com
bval...@aol.com wrote:
> 'm as puzzled as you are - I, yes, also find it rather offensive; one
> of the great salutary lessons of the Northern Ireland situation - and
> of Iraq, Vietnam, Israel and an endless list of other very sad
> situations - is that violence only ever begets more violence. That, in
> fact, when it comes down to it, is why 9/11 happened (which is *not* an
>
> argument that 9/11 - or any other act of terrorism - was justified; it
> was indefensible and horrific. It was, however, brought about by
> resentment of America's disastrous foreign policy). >>>>
>
> Ah, so you go by the theory that we should "talk until we're blue in
> the face" with terrorists to find common ground?
No, dipshit. I'm not talking about theories, I'm talking about the
*fact* that disastrous American intervention abroad caused massive,
festering, seething resentment of the United States, which was bound,
sooner or later, to erupt into attacks on American targets.
> A couple of questions, sparky:
>
>
> · What could the Jews have said to Hitler to get him to close
> Buchenwald?
> · What insight could the intellectuals have shared with Stalin to
> stop the cattle-car ride to Siberia?
> · What was left out of the seventeen resolutions to Saddam that
> would have made the difference?
> · What poem would have softened the heart of Pol Pot?
> · What magic words would you whisper into President Mahmoud
> Ahmadinejad ear to give up his threats to nuke Israel? (BTW, you
> better save your extra special magic words for this guy... his WMD can
> reach Europe.)
> · If only Bill Clinton had listened to Kim Jong Il, and given him
> the money he needed for food, they wouldn't be a nuclear power right
> now. Oh, wait, Clinton DID do that, didn't he?
Oh, dear God. Once again, you actually think you have a clue.
>
> >>>That, in fact, when it comes down to it, is why 9/11 happened...>>>
>
> The reason 911 happened is because the terrorists weren't afraid of
> America. They are now.
>
> >>>> (which is *not* an argument that 9/11 - or any other act of terrorism - was justified; it was indefensible and horrific. It was, however, brought about by resentment of America's disastrous foreign policy). >>>>
>
> See, we can agree. I completely agree that 911 was caused by Clinton's
> disasterous foreign policy. Clinton let the terrorist get away with
> literal genocide, and emboldened them.
ROFL. You can always tell when an American right-winger has run out of
arguments - that's when the "Blame Clinton" mantra starts up.
The seeds of the 9/11 attack were sown way, *way* before the beginning
of the Clinton administration.
Stephen